Oral Answers to Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Schools Investment (Wolverhampton, South-West)

Rob Marris: What assessment he has made of the effects of Government capital investment in schools in Wolverhampton, South-West since 1997.

Gordon Brown: Since 1997, Government support for capital investment in school buildings in Wolverhampton alone has been £43 million. In England as a whole, investment has risen from £700 million to reach £5.1 billion. Because over the next 15 years we are committed to ensuring that all secondary schools in Wolverhampton are upgraded, we will announce our capital investment programme soon.
	At the start of this Question Time, it may help the House to know that the Treasury will publish Lord Penrose's report into Equitable Life on Monday. We will publish the report in full and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will make a statement to the House.

Rob Marris: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and for providing schools in Wolverhampton with £43 million of capital investment over the past six years. Coincidentally, I also had the first question at the most recent Treasury questions. On that occasion, the Chancellor announced the date of this year's Budget. Will he firmly assure me that, in his Budget, he will maintain capital investment in schools in Wolverhampton, and that he is not planning massive cuts to overall spending?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although every reply that I give him is very expensive. I assure him that we plan to expand our programme of capital investment over the next spending round. It would be disastrous for the country and for education if we cut capital investment in our schools. If the education budget were to be cut, there would be cuts in further and adult education, in Sure Start, in nursery education and in universities. That is the Opposition's programme.

Spirit Duty Fraud

Alistair Carmichael: If he will make a statement on the independent review of spirit duty fraud levels.

John Healey: I have welcomed the review by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, of the estimates of spirits fraud. I have offered the full support and assistance of Treasury and Customs officials. The content of the review is a matter for Sir John.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and for meeting the Scotch Whisky Association yesterday to discuss the issue of duty fraud. The association claims that the proposals that it is bringing forward would increase the tax take, and do so before the strip stamp that is being considered. The National Audit Office is also making an independent assessment of the scale of the problem. Will the Economic Secretary assure the House that we are not talking about a decision that has been made already, and that he is still listening to the industry on this question?

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is right, and he will know that yesterday's meeting with the Scotch Whisky Association was just the latest of the many detailed discussions that my officials and I have had with the industry. The industry's alternative proposals have been worked up, and I expect to receive them at the end of the week. We will give them serious consideration, as it is clear that there is a very serious problem. No one can dispute that the public taxpayer is being defrauded of hundreds of millions of pounds that should go to the public purse. Organised criminal networks obtain large consignments of spirits that they then divert to the market through wholesalers and retailers, with the result that no one—not consumers, retailers or Customs officers—is any the wiser about the fraud that is going on. No responsible Government can do other than tackle fraud such as that in the way that is necessary.

Brian H Donohoe: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are problems with strip stamps? Where they have been implemented, it has been shown that there is more fraud, rather than less. Will he say whether the alternative proposed yesterday by the industry was acceptable? He has often agreed to meet the all-party group in the past. Will he do so again, before the Budget, so that we can put to him one last plea to accept an alternative?

John Healey: It is simply not the case that strip stamps have failed in all the countries that have introduced them. More than 40 countries, including EU member states, operate strip stamp arrangements, for quality assurance as well as for the control of fraud. We have worked very closely with the trade on this matter, looking at the logistics and practical problems that might be encountered if we decided to introduce strip stamps in the UK. I shall indeed be sure to meet my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the all-party Scotch whisky group. I have done so before, and will do so again before the Budget. Since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's announcement in the pre-Budget report, I have taken part in a series of detailed discussions. I have met 14 separate companies in the industry. My officials and I have taken part in 38 separate meetings on these matters since the pre-Budget report. That is an unprecedented level of consultation, discussion and detailed joint working.

Angus Robertson: Has the Minister read the letter from Glasgow-based security printers Gavin Watson Ltd., which was sent to the Chancellor on 12 December 2003, about what they say is the
	"impracticability of the proposed Tax Stamps for spirits"?
	What estimate has the Treasury made of the potential for fraudulent counterfeiting of strip stamps should this daft and dangerous scheme be introduced?

John Healey: I am aware of the letter, and of the reasonable concerns that exist about any system of strip stamps and the potential for counterfeiting problems. Advice from other players in the industry suggests that such a system can be introduced and the counterfeiting problem dealt with. The question for the hon. Gentleman is whether he is prepared to back the action that we have to take to stamp out the current level of spirit fraud. If the answer is yes, I look forward to his support after the Budget for the action that we ultimately take to deal with the problem.

Small Business Taxation

Richard Ottaway: What discussions he has had with representatives of small businesses regarding proposed changes to the taxation of small incorporated businesses.

Dawn Primarolo: The Government will announce in the Budget their proposals for taxing owner-managed businesses. It would not be right to consult on proposals of this nature in the period immediately prior to the Budget.

Richard Ottaway: The Minister will be aware that since 1999 taxation policy for small businesses has been skewed in such a way that it is much more attractive for small businesses to incorporate than to remain unincorporated. She will be aware that in the past financial year the number of new incorporations went up by 43 per cent. Was that an intended consequence? If so, why has she hinted that she will reverse the policy?

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Government policy on incorporation and unincorporated companies is to introduce a series of measures that help both, for example the 40 per cent. first-year capital allowances. He will also know that the Government's policy is to ensure that incentives are focused on encouraging companies to retain profits in order to reinvest in themselves to help them grow. It is right that the Government should consider that principle now and ensure that the policies in place are delivering reinvestment in companies that are growing, providing jobs and increasing productivity and affluence.

Roger Casale: May I tell my right hon. Friend that many small businesses in my constituency have incorporated, encouraged by the prospect of stable economic growth, the ability to access research and development tax credits and the zero rate of tax on £10,000 profits? She has said that she keeps these matters under review. Will she make sure that any further changes are introduced fairly and build on the good consultation with the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce that this Government have established, in stark contrast to the deaf ears of the Tory party when it was in office?

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is right that the stable economic environment is necessary. The stability produced by this Government has ensured that regardless of companies' incorporation or otherwise, we have more companies, they are growing and they are contributing to the British economy. That stability has in part been secured by consideration of tax issues in detailed discussions with all the organisations involved, including the Federation of Small Businesses, with which we are in regular contact.

David Ruffley: In 2002 the Chancellor told us that the small tax incentive for small incorporated businesses would cost not more than £265 million in the current financial year. Now independent experts tell us that it will cost the Exchequer at least four times that. As a result the right hon. Lady tells us that she is contemplating a U-turn—a change which will mean higher taxes on hard-pressed small business men and women. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that that proves that when it comes to tax, new Labour's figures simply do not add up?

Dawn Primarolo: As usual, the hon. Gentleman bases his assertions on figures that he cannot substantiate. As he well knows, the growth in jobs and in small businesses and the benefits to his constituency in seeing reductions in unemployment—down by 48 per cent.—are all part of the Government's strategy of ensuring we deliver economic stability, in which all companies, small, large, incorporated and unincorporated, can grow.

Brian Cotter: Does the Minister not realise that highlighting that possible change causes an enormous amount of concern to small businesses? There has been such excessive tinkering with the taxation system that instead of stability, which is what the Government said they wanted, we have instability; we are creating jobs for accountants rather than in small businesses.

Dawn Primarolo: We shall only have to wait until later today for an abject lesson in changing policies; my recollection is that the hon. Gentleman has supported every measure the Government have introduced to help small businesses, whether incorporated or unincorporated, because he realises the value of helping companies to grow, to reinvest in their business and create the jobs that we all need in our constituencies—including his.

Howard Flight: During the Standing Committee on the Finance Act 2002, I questioned the wisdom of the Government giving large tax increases to small businesses to incorporate and, indeed, the wisdom of favouring one legal structure over another. The Paymaster General responded very pithily to my question, in confirmation of that intent—the Chancellor might bother to listen to this—and told me that small business would not look a gift horse in the mouth.
	In the light of IR591, 117 MPs signed early-day motion 501, asking the Chancellor to explain what has gone wrong with Government policy and what are now their intentions. The fact is that the Government deliberately—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are still only on Question 3? We must move on, but the Paymaster General can answer.

Dawn Primarolo: I am sorry to say that, as always, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) is confused. The Government did not introduce tax increases; we introduced reductions in tax to help small businesses to grow so that they could contribute to economic stability and to the growth and development of our economy. As a measure of the hon. Gentleman's confusion, at that time he was forecasting a crash.

Government Debt

Nick Gibb: What measures he is undertaking to reduce Government debt levels.

Gordon Brown: Because of the decisions we have made, including our fiscal rules, the sale of spectrum and the reduction of unemployment, public sector net debt, which was 44 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1997, is forecast to be just 32.8 per cent. in 2003–04, and below 40 per cent. for the whole forecast period. Last year, UK net debt, as a percentage of GDP, was the lowest among the G7 countries.

Nick Gibb: That is all very well, but the Chancellor's net borrowing projections in the Green Book show no abatement to that borrowing over the long term. In 1996, he made the clear and public commitment that he had no plans to raise taxes at all. Can he now give a similar commitment—that despite current and projected debt levels he will not raise taxes to fund them, either in the remainder of this Parliament or, if the unthinkable were to happen and his party were to win the next general election, in the next Parliament?

Gordon Brown: We have kept all our manifesto promises on tax, and we will continue to keep all our manifesto promises on taxes. I will take no lectures on economic stability from the hon. Gentleman, who opposed the independence of the Bank of England.

Dennis Skinner: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirm that the debts of Britain are lower than those of France and Germany and that they are a hell of a sight lower than in America—Bush's kingdom? They will never be as bad as black Wednesday in September 1992, when the Tories lost £10 billion in a single afternoon—and they never even went near a betting shop.

Gordon Brown: Debt rose under the Conservatives from 28 per cent. of national income to 44 per cent. of national income in 1997. I shall give the House the figures for other countries: debt in Britain at the moment is in the order of £350 billion; in the United States of America, it is £3,000 billion; and in Japan, it is £2,000 billion. We have the lowest debt of all G7 countries.

Vincent Cable: First, I apologise to the Chancellor and to the shadow Chancellor because I must leave early in order to present the Liberal Democrat alternative Budget, which is based on sound finance, tough choices in spending and fairer taxes. I am sure the Chancellor will endorse those principles and even draw inspiration from them.
	On Government debt, the Government have apparently identified large savings as a result of the Gershon review. Will those savings be banked, as I hope, in order to cut Government debt and the growing deficit, or will the Chancellor use them to fund additional spending commitments?

Gordon Brown: If, as the hon. Gentleman says, the Liberals are announcing hard choices today, it will be the first time in all my years in the House of Commons. When he examines his spending commitments, which he says he has reduced, he might examine his own website, www.vincentcable.com, where he states:
	"Benefits from bees' natural pollination activities are enormous, worth billions of pounds . . . I have pressed the Ministry of Agriculture for a bigger research commitment."
	We will take the Liberal Democrats seriously when they reduce their spending commitments, which they continue to make. As regards national debt, I think he will agree with me that the decisions that we made in 1997, including the sale of spectrum, our new fiscal rules and the manner in which we made the Bank of England independent, were the right decisions to keep debt low, and the Conservative party opposed all of them.

Barry Sheerman: May I remind my right hon. Friend that a lot of men and women on his Back Benches believe in Government debt if it services public expenditure, which guarantees the future health and education of our country? Will he carefully examine this morning's remarks by Sir Howard Newby, who points out that unless we urgently get extra investment into higher education, we will not be able to provide quality higher education for all the people in our country who need it?

Gordon Brown: Conservative Members do not seem to understand that we have managed to have low inflation, economic growth, low unemployment and low debt while maintaining all our commitments to public investment in education, health, transport and policing. It is sad that the Conservative party now says that it will cut budgets for science, defence, infrastructure, skills and even international development.

Peter Tapsell: Before the Chancellor courted and then jilted prudence, had he ever found in his private life that the best way to reduce debt is to reduce spending and increase saving? Might that have a public implication?

Gordon Brown: As the hon. Gentleman knows, savings ratios are rising. Saving in this country is currently twice as good as in the United States. He tries to lecture us on the economy, but I remind him that he and Conservative Members opposed the major decision that we made in 1997 to make the Bank of England independent and create stability.

Llew Smith: Will the Chancellor give the House estimates of total expenditure on the continuing war in Iraq and on Trident? What would our national debt be without that expenditure?

Gordon Brown: As regards expenditure on Iraq, Afghanistan and terrorism, I gave the House the figure in the pre-Budget report, and I shall report again in the Budget. Over the past few years, we have had to set aside an extra £3.5 billion for those commitments. That has been possible because we have had economic growth and have managed the public finances in such a way that whenever we have had to make exceptional commitments, we have been able to do so. The country will find it extraordinary that the Conservative party plans to cut the defence budget.

Oliver Letwin: As the Chancellor appeared not to want to answer the perfectly reasonable question asked by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), let me try again. It is a simple question: does the Chancellor agree with his own efficiency adviser, Sir Peter Gershon, that there are £15 billion a year of efficiency savings that could be used to reduce borrowing and public debt without affecting front-line services? Yes or no?

Gordon Brown: I will announce in the Budget the initial conclusions of the Gershon review, and then we will announce further conclusions in the spending review. We will manage to cut substantially the costs of central administration as a percentage of public expenditure and of the national income from what it was in the Conservative years. However, it is necessary to combine policies for economic stability and growth with the need for continuing public investment, and it is unfortunate that the Conservatives now want to cut public investment.

Oliver Letwin: It is a pity that the Chancellor seems to be afraid of admitting that he agrees with his own efficiency adviser. What about the independent commentators, including the International Monetary Fund, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the ITEM Club and the Institute for Fiscal Studies? Will he at least agree with them that if he does not use something like £15 billion of efficiency savings to reduce Government borrowing, a third-term Labour Government would need to raise taxes by about £15 billion to meet his own fiscal rules?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman tries to anticipate the conclusions in my Budget statement. I can tell him that I will not make the mistakes that the Conservative party made, in wasting money on the exchange rate mechanism and the poll tax, and the other waste that we inherited and had to deal with in 1997.

Oliver Letwin: I really hope that underneath all the bluster, bravado and Punch and Judy politics, there is a quiet, still voice somewhere inside the Chancellor—I suspect there probably is—urging him to engage in rational debate. Can he truly not see that when his own efficiency adviser says that he has £15 billion a year of savings, we can either use the money to reduce Government borrowing to acceptable levels or we can go on another spending spree and raise taxes again?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait until we announce the conclusions of the Gershon review in the Budget and the spending review. He asks me today to anticipate what I will say to the House in the Budget and then in the spending review. What I can say to him is that we will not cut defence, we will not cut transport, we will not cut the science budget and we will not cut the international development budget: those are the policies of the Conservatives before they even know the public finance figures.

Charities

Nicholas Winterton: What changes he proposes for the taxation of charities.

Paul Boateng: The Government keep all aspects of taxation policy under review. Any possible changes to charity tax will be considered by the Chancellor in his assessment of what is required in the Budget.

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he accept that admission charities such as the Macclesfield silk museums are in a different position to beneficial charities such as Oxfam when it comes to the recovery of gift aid benefit? Charities such as the silk museums are often able to function and survive only by imposing admission charges. Will he accept that the entry fees should be regarded as a donation to the charity, rather than a proportion being seen as a donation and the balance as a commercial benefit? Will he please review the situation, for the sake of the survival of many small museums?

Paul Boateng: The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot comment on specific individuals or institutions, but I share his enthusiasm for and commitment to the charitable sector and to the particular sector that he mentions. He will also understand that the proper focus of the gift aid scheme has to be on a continuing relationship between the donor and the charitable organisation. The changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the pre-Budget report, which are currently the subject of discussion with the sector, are designed to achieve that. Day admissions, as the hon. Gentleman will know, are not really about ongoing relationships and, therefore, I cannot accept the thrust that underpins his question.

Stephen McCabe: If there is to be a review of charities and tax, could we once and for all define what legitimate charities are, and stop the abuse by which organisations such as public schools may posture as charities to gain tax relief?

Paul Boateng: The matters to which my hon. Friend refers are properly matters for the Charity Commission, not the Government. I know that he will join in the support on both sides of the House for the valuable role that the charitable sector plays.

Mark Prisk: Given the clear concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House and the unique role of charities, will the Chief Secretary explain why under this Government—despite all the many schemes and promises—the total tax paid by charities has not simply increased, but effectively doubled?

Paul Boateng: What the hon. Gentleman describes as "all the promises" have delivered £2.3 billion-worth of tax reliefs and special provisions to charities each year, £506 million of which has been a result of gift aid. He will not find anyone in the charitable sector who accepts his analysis that the Government have not done more for that sector than any of their predecessors—they have certainly done more than the Government formed by the party of which he is a member. We have continued, and we will continue, to support the charitable sector. I hope that we enjoy from his party the support that our measures deserve, because we have not always had it in the past.

Employment (Scotland)

Anne Begg: If he will make a statement on the level of employment in Scotland since 1997.

Gordon Brown: Employment in Scotland has risen by 119,000 since 1997.

Anne Begg: The north of Scotland is like the rest of Scotland—there are now more people in work than ever before. However, that means that a lot of businesses cannot find people to fill jobs because there is a labour shortage. The local Jobcentre Plus in Aberdeen, which covers Grampian, Moray and Orkney and Shetland, has been doing sterling work in getting lone parents and people on incapacity benefit off benefits and into work. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that this Government will not abolish the new deals or the work that has been done on new deals to get people into work to plug that gap in the labour market—unlike the Conservative party?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend knows that unemployment in her constituency is now only 2 per cent., that only 33 young people are unemployed and that there are 30 long-term unemployed. It is because of the new deal that it has been possible for people to get back into work. It is even more necessary in a highly skilled economy that the new deal operates to give people the skills that are necessary. It is sad that both the Liberal and Conservative parties want to abolish the new deal.

Russell Brown: The Leader of the Opposition is in my locality today meeting pensioners. Quite clearly he will explain to them what a Conservative Government would do, but I am sure he will not explain how he would pay for it. Clearly the new deal is under threat—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about unemployment, and there is too much emphasis on the Leader of the Opposition. [Hon. Members: "Ah."] I did not mean that in a bad sense.

Charities

John Barrett: What assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed changes to gift aid on conservation and heritage charities.

Paul Boateng: No definitive assessment of the impact of the proposal to remove day admissions from the gift aid scheme exists. The Inland Revenue is discussing the implementation of the proposal with the sector.

John Barrett: The Royal Zoological Society of Scotland is just one of the many charities affected by the proposals. It is acting on the advice of the Minister's Department rather than exploiting a loophole. Will the Chief Secretary urge the Chancellor to postpone any changes to gift aid regulations until after meaningful consultation with the affected charities has taken place?

Paul Boateng: The Inland Revenue is having continuing discussions with the sector on implementation. The need to ensure that gift aid is properly focused is something that the hon. Gentleman will well understand. He will also understand that under this Government, especially in relation to the heritage and conservation charities, we have seen a 20 per cent. increase in real terms as far as museums and galleries are concerned. Support for regional museums has gone up from zero to £30 million per annum. We look forward to the announcements that will come from the shadow Chancellor who speaks for the Liberal Democrats in due course, but I wonder whether his promises will be able to match our record of actual delivery to the sector.

Ann Cryer: May I refer my right hon. Friend to a letter that I forwarded to the Treasury from the Brontë Society, of which I am a member? It is the trust that cares for the Brontë Parsonage museum in Haworth in my constituency, and it is concerned about the future of gift aid. The letter I forwarded reads:
	"Price increases are likely to have the effect of reducing visitor numbers—quite contrary to the government's declared policy and in contrast to the funding of free entry to National Museums."

Paul Boateng: As I said to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), and I have to repeat to my hon. Friend, I cannot comment on the tax affairs of specific organisations. I can say that there is no question of any organisation being obliged to increase its admission prices. That is not what is proposed. The proposal is to ensure that we maintain a proper focus on an ongoing relationship with the charity concerned.
	My hon. Friend will agree with me—I have had the pleasure of visiting the museum to which she referred—that what will best serve the museum and conservation sectors are measures to improve and increase the number of donors who have an ongoing relationship with a particular charity. That is what the Government have done, to the tune of about £2.3 billion each year, of which £506 million is associated specifically with gift aid.
	No one has done more for the sector than my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It continues to be a sector with which we have very good relations. The Inland Revenue has been engaged for many years with the sector in the campaign to promote giving. We shall continue to seek to promote giving, and the measure does nothing to detract from that achievement.

Henry Bellingham: I do not know how much time the Minister has on his hands, but perhaps he will be less busy after the Budget. Will he come to Norfolk to see some small independent charities—for example, the Cockley Cley Iceni museum or the Muckleborough tank collection, where you can drive a 1944 Sherman tank—and hear from the independent sector how strongly it feels about the policy on admission charges?

Paul Boateng: I do not think that I should be let loose in any tank, let alone a 1944 Sherman tank. I shall endeavour, next time I am in Norfolk, to visit at least one of the museums that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Judy Mallaber: May I, too, press my right hon. Friend to use the welcome deferral of the changes to the gift aid concession to reconsider the proposal? The National Tramway museum in my constituency is a wonderful and unique museum, and one of only seven designated museums with no assured funding. The original and helpful advice of the Inland Revenue, in allowing the concession, was welcome. Will my right hon. Friend please look at this matter again to ascertain whether it is possible to continue the concession on entry fees?

Paul Boateng: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that she has written to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, and she will receive a reply very shortly.

Robert Key: May I appeal to the Chief Secretary's better nature? I happen to agree with him that, on the face of it, admission charges are not an obvious candidate for gift aid. However, it was on the advice of the Inland Revenue that so many of the independent and other charities and museums decided to go into the scheme. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that any scheme that he comes up with after consultation with the charities concerned will at least be phased in and that no sudden change will be made? If that were to happen, it would lead to job losses and to a substantial loss of revenue, which would amount to several thousand pounds for a small museum.

Paul Boateng: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I know how much he supports the sector, not only the institution in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is considering the issue of timing. I refer the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who have raised the issue to something that was said by Kate Biggs, director of the Dean Heritage museum in the Forest of Dean, in a letter that she wrote to a national newspaper on 9 February:
	"I chose to wait and see how many other museums took up this scam—that's what I thought it was . . . This was always a loophole, and it was inevitable that it would be closed at some point."
	It is important to recognise that some in the sector always took a different view of the provision. I urge all hon. Members, whose concerns I well understand, to reflect on what gift aid is about—keeping the focus on ongoing connection and giving, which are in the sector's best interests.

Unemployment (North-West)

Andy Burnham: If he will make a statement on the rate of unemployment in the north-west.

Gordon Brown: Unemployment in the north-west has fallen by 63,000 since 1997. Over the same period, both long-term and youth unemployment have fallen by more than three quarters.

Andy Burnham: The Chancellor will agree that that excellent record on jobs in the north-west is due not just to the new deal but to the £16.5 million that the Government give to north-west businesses through regional selective assistance. Is he aware of the suggestion floated this morning on the "Today" programme that the Department of Trade and Industry should effectively be closed down and regional selective assistance stopped? Does he agree that that dangerous policy would have a huge impact on job creation in our deprived communities, and will he rule it out altogether?

Gordon Brown: It is absolutely essential not only that we have the new deal to help with the creation of jobs, but that we have regional policies in place to assist with investment in the infrastructure for science, innovation and skills. It would be disastrous if the Liberal policy of abandoning regional aid were introduced, and it would be equally disastrous if the budget of the Department of Trade and Industry, including the budget for science, were cut, as proposed by the shadow Chancellor.

Helen Jones: My right hon. Friend will know that Government economic policies have reduced unemployment in Warrington to 1.7 per cent. and given us gross average annual incomes that are higher than those for the north-west as a whole. However, that disguises inequalities in the borough, and many of my constituents are still in fairly low-paid employment. Will my right hon. Friend outline which policies he will pursue to ensure that we attract more high-tech, well-paid jobs to the north-west, and will he discuss with his hon. Friends in the DTI the value of the Omega employment site in my constituency—the largest industrial development site in the north-west—and how we can best pursue policies to develop it for the benefit not just of Warrington but of adjoining constituencies?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have had a number of meetings with representative organisations in the north-west and elsewhere about regional policy and what more we can do to help science and innovation. In the north-west, the Science and Industry Council, chaired by Sir Tom McKillop, is working to attract new science-based industry to the area. We will continue to support those policies, but it is necessary to fund the new deal as well as regional and science policies. It is a pity that Opposition parties oppose that.

Personal Debt

David Amess: What discussions he has had with representatives of the Bank of England regarding the sustainability of current levels of personal debt.

Gordon Brown: I last met the Governor of the Bank of England on Tuesday. Interest rates are close to their lowest for 40 years and for the average household the cost of servicing debt is half what it was in the recession of the early '90s. Both the Bank and the Treasury will continue to pursue policies designed to ensure economic stability.

David Amess: The Chancellor is fond of telling the country not to worry about the level of personal debt, but under this rotten and discredited Government it rose to £10.6 billion in January, despite the fact that personal savings have halved. Will the Chancellor admit to the House that there is a risk that through his policies he is storing up trouble for the future? Does he intend to leave that matter to the Monetary Policy Committee and will it be included in the Government's new inflation target?

Gordon Brown: At every point, the Conservative party tries to predict that the economy is about to go into recession, and the hon. Gentleman, too, is trying to suggest that we have created a problem that will make growth in the economy unsustainable. I repeat that the cost of servicing debt for households is half what it was at the beginning of the 1990s, because we have lower inflation and have managed to keep interest rates low. The Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee has just announced that interest rates are on hold this month at 4 per cent., and the Governor of the Bank of England has made clear his view of the sort of talk engaged in by the hon. Gentleman:
	"I think some of the headlines are unnecessarily alarmist . . . the fraction of household incomes which are used up in debts service is lower now that it was then"—
	the beginning of the '90s. He went on to say:
	"There is no indication that the scale of debt problems have actually risen markedly in the last five years". It is not just me saying so; it is also the Bank of England.

Ken Purchase: Notwithstanding that reassuring reply, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a strong underlying and continuing problem with store card debt run up by young people, where the rates of interest—30 per cent. plus—can only be described as usurious? Does my right hon. Friend agree that finance companies are making bigger profits by providing financial services for these purchases than the manufacturers are managing to turn round from the goods they are selling? Will my right hon. Friend look at the problem and ensure that young people get a fairer deal when they go to the store for whatever they need?

Gordon Brown: We have received the Treasury Committee's report on consumer credit and shall be replying to it. At the same time, when we bring the Budget to the House, we shall have the Miles report on the mortgage industry. It is absolutely true that the DTI's consumer credit White Paper tries to deal with cases where there are unscrupulous lenders or where excessive costs are charged for borrowing.
	In answer to the question that has been put to me about the macro-economic position, it is totally unreasonable for the Conservatives to claim that somehow the growth and stability that we have managed to create in the economy are unsustainable. Every time they have made that claim, they have had to retract it.

James Clappison: Is not one cause of indebtedness the fact that many people no longer have savings to fall back on on a rainy day? Given the collapse in saving under this Government, as measured by the average savings ratio, which is way lower than it was under the last Government, will not the withdrawal of tax concessions on personal equity plans and individual savings accounts make this even worse? Why do the Government seek to do this? How many people will be affected?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. The lowest recorded annual savings ratio was in 1988 under the Conservative Government, at 4.9 per cent. The savings ratio in this country today is 5.9 per cent.—more than double the savings ratio recorded in the United States of America. If the hon. Gentleman has real criticisms, they are against his colleagues.

Richard Burden: While my right hon. Friend is obviously right to draw attention to the Government's achievements at the macro level, he has acknowledged the real problem of personal debt for many people on low and fixed incomes, too many of whom fall prey to loan sharks. Does he agree that one important way of addressing this problem is to find pathways out of poverty? Although the Government have made a great contribution through tax credits, the new deal and so on, the private sector could make a big impact through greater efforts in community reinvestment to regenerate communities. What is my right hon. Friend doing to encourage that?

Gordon Brown: We are discussing with many voluntary organisations and charitable bodies exactly those issues: how we can encourage through social enterprise more investment in communities that historically have low levels of investment and also low levels of employment. I agree with my hon. Friend that where we see unscrupulous lending practices we must act against them, and we shall make proposals on that matter. Where at the same time we see situations in which mortgage charges are too high—this is what the Miles report is looking at—we shall come forward with both information on the matter and proposals where they are necessary. But I have to tell my hon. Friend that those who allege that the stability of our economy was not hard won and hard earned are completely wrong. We have managed to create stability in this country at a level that was never achieved under the previous Government.

David Cameron: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), what is the Chancellor's reaction to the head of Fidelity, who said that the Government's policy on saving was a complete mess? The Chancellor is fond of always saying that he will not take lectures from anybody. Will he listen to the person responsible for selling savings products to many people in this country?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman's party said that ISAs would not work—

David Cameron: What about Fidelity?

Gordon Brown: This is my answer to Fidelity: 15 million policies have been taken out and £120 billion has been invested as a result of the creation of ISAs. That has been a success story, not the failure that the hon. Gentleman says it is. I have just given the figures for the savings ratio. It is about time that the Conservative party congratulated us on our economic record.

University Tuition Fees

Graham Allen: If he will establish a tax-free education bond available to all parents, to help them save for university fees payable by their children when graduating; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Boateng: We have no plans to introduce such a bond. Our proposals ensure that no parent needs to fund their children's variable tuition fees. Instead, graduates will make a contribution to the cost of their higher education, and only when they can afford to do so.

Graham Allen: I thank the Treasury team for their management of the economy, which means that two thirds of the young people in my constituency come from homes that will benefit from a full £3,000 grant under the Government's proposals in the Higher Education Bill. Will my right hon. Friend consider a children's trust bond, which is a very good idea, and whether we could extend it into a lifelong learning bond that would be available to anyone who wanted to invest in further education or part-time learning or be a mature student? Will my right hon. Friend examine that idea, see whether it is possible to extend it and perhaps write to me before the Bill completes its progress through the House?

Paul Boateng: We are grateful for the careful consideration that my hon. Friend gives to these matters, not least in Standing Committee. He will appreciate that our policies aim to improve the savings environment, create the right savings incentives and empower individuals to make financial choices throughout their lives. In relation to the children's trust fund, our policy has always been that fundholders are the best judge of their future needs. That is why we have not imposed any restriction on how those funds might be used. I am always open to correspondence with my hon. Friend, who has written to the Treasury on a number of occasions. I look forward to receiving a further letter from him and will respond to it as soon as possible.

Chris Grayling: The Chief Secretary knows that under the Government's proposals on student fees, the cost to the taxpayer of the increased student loan subsidy and of compensating less well-off students for the cost of paying fees exceeds the amount of money that will be raised by the university through fees, while students end up with much higher levels of debt. The only possible economic reason for the Treasury to do that is if it intends to claw back grant money from the universities in future spending reviews. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do that?

Paul Boateng: I have no intention of anticipating the outcome of future spending reviews. However, spending on higher education will rise from about £7.5 billion in 2002–03 to nearly £10 billion in 2005–06—a real-terms increase of more than 6 per cent. each year. Compare that with the cuts that were the track record of the Opposition. Compare those figures with the record of the previous Administration, under whom funding per student between 1989 and 1997 dropped every year, and by 36 per cent. in total in real terms. That is their record. Ours is one of achievement and continued support for students and universities.

Overseas Development Aid

Colin Challen: What assessment he has made of the main obstacles to delivering the targets set in the millennium development goals.

Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement on progress to achieve the millennium development goals.

Gordon Brown: Since 1997 we have raised overseas development aid from 0.26 per cent. of gross national income to a projected 0.4 per cent. To achieve the millennium development goals, including 80 million more school places, will not only take economic reform, achieving value for money in aid and a settlement of the world trade talks, but cannot be achieved without those increases in overseas development aid.

Colin Challen: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, which shows that Britain is leading the way in the attempt to meet those goals. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speech he gave to faith groups and non-governmental organisations on 18 February when, among many other things, he said:
	"Too often we have set goals, reset them, and recalibrated them again so that all we end up doing is mitigating the extent to which we have failed."
	That is an honest appraisal of why the goals are proving so difficult to meet. At current rates of development, my right hon. Friend has predicted that some of them will take over a century to achieve. Is he content that there is sufficient political will on the international stage to meet the goals? Perhaps if we described the millennium development goals as a war on poverty, we might have a greater chance of success.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is right. The latest information is that the major millennium goals of getting every child into education, halving poverty and achieving a two-thirds reduction in infant mortality will not, on present trends, be met by 2115, far less by 2015. That is why we need extra resources and why we cannot escape the question of how we can create those resources. It is no use people saying that they support our international finance facility without committing themselves to further overseas aid. I wish that we had a consensus in the House of Commons for further increases in overseas aid, but unfortunately the Conservatives wish to cut the budget.

Huw Edwards: May I tell my right hon. Friend that there is considerable support in my constituency for the millennium development goals, especially those to combat gender inequality and to promote maternal health? Those concerns will be highlighted tonight when Glenys Kinnock opens the Monmouth women's festival. Given that the UK assumes the presidency of the G7 next year, how will my right hon. Friend persuade the other wealthy countries of the world to support the international finance facility in order to achieve those goals?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Next year is important because it is the first year in which a millennium development target falls due to be met—namely, the target on reducing inequalities in educational opportunities for girls and women. That target will not be met. It is also the year when we hold the G7 presidency. We believe, given the establishment of the commission on Africa, that our G7 presidency will indeed be a development presidency. We are determined to make progress. One of the ways in which we shall do so is the conference that France and Britain have called for next month in Paris. Sixty countries will attend, and we hope to persuade them of the virtues of the international finance facility, which could, if it worked, double the amount of aid for the next 10 years.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Chancellor be minded to link the millennium development goals with the Government's war on terror, which we support? In particular, will he push in world trade talks for alternative crops in countries such as Afghanistan, in order to wean them away from opium production?

Gordon Brown: I accept what the hon. Lady says about the problems of opium production in Afghanistan, which perhaps represents a bigger share of its economy than the formal economy that is registered there. That is why, at the G7 meeting, we discussed special measures to reduce the economy's dependence on opium. At the same time, it is necessary to persuade people that if they open up to trade and change the system so that they have stability and are open to investment, we are prepared to help them to solve problems, including those of education and health, that they cannot solve financially on their own. That must be part of a new deal between the developed and the developing countries. That new deal will, however, require money, so I hope that the Conservatives will reconsider their decision to freeze, then to cut, the overseas development budget.

Jenny Tonge: I sincerely congratulate the Chancellor on the progress that he has made on this front. I hope that he would include in that the brilliant contribution made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) when she was Secretary of State for International Development. Having said that, is the Chancellor concerned about the progress that is being made in getting other countries to contribute to the global fund and the finance facility that he recently set up?

Gordon Brown: America has agreed to increase by $5 billion a year the amount of overseas development aid that it provides. That is in its own millennium challenge fund. The European Union has agreed to increase overseas development aid from 0.32 to 0.39 per cent. of European gross domestic product. That is a big change in decision making by many European Governments. We are increasing our overseas development aid from 0.26 to 0.4 per cent. of GDP. Governments around the world have agreed to increase the amount of development aid that they provide.
	However, because the cuts in aid over the past 20 years have been so severe, those resources are not sufficient to deal with the problems of education, of health or even of HIV/AIDS. That is why we need a new measure, and why we proposed the international finance facility. I am pleased that that has support from the Liberal party and support in principle from the Conservative party. However, that support depends in practice on our being able to increase the overseas development budget, so I again urge the Conservatives to reconsider their decision to oppose that.

Civil Service

Gwyn Prosser: What measures he is taking to address low pay in the civil service.

John Healey: It is up to individual Departments to determine their own pay and grading systems. Then, through the pay remits system, they are provided with the means to deal with the particular recruitment and retention problems that they face.

Gwyn Prosser: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I appreciate that the Chancellor's record on tackling poverty is second to none, but how is that reconciled with the rigid capping of pay offers, especially in the Department for Work and Pensions, to low-paid civil servants, whose pay barely keeps up with the statutory minimum wage and whose take-home pay the Public and Commercial Services Union describes as "poverty pay"? Will my hon. Friend meet me and colleagues to find ways of paying those hard-working people a fair day's pay for a fair day's work?

John Healey: Of course I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and members of the PCS.
	We are proud of our investment in public services and of what we have been able to do to get those who work and serve in the public services fairer pay and treatment. I stress to my hon. Friend that part of our job is to ensure that pay budgets across Government are realistic, affordable and directed towards improving services. That is why we are considering the efficiency review, relocating civil servants out of London and the south-east, and increasing local pay flexibility. Above all, Labour's monetary policy framework, which the Tories opposed, has led us to the longest period of sustained low inflation since the 1960s. Wage bargainers can now plan with the sort of confidence that they could not previously entertain. In those circumstances, I hope that we can deal with the concerns of my hon. Friend and the PCS.

Business of the House

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

Peter Hain: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 8 March—Commons consideration of Lords amendments to the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution on the Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill, followed by a motion to approve the first joint report of the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Administration Committee on visitor facilities: "Access to Parliament".
	Tuesday 9 March—Opposition Day [Unallotted]. There will be a debate entitled "Publication of the Advice from the Attorney-General on Iraq", followed by a debate entitled "Young People and Democracy". Both debates arise on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru.
	Wednesday 10 March—Second Reading of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].
	Thursday 11 March—Estimates [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on aviation services and a debate on biofuels. Details will be given in the Official Report. At 6 o'clock the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Friday 12 March—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 15 March—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill. Remaining stages of the Fire and Rescue Services Bill.
	Tuesday 16 March—Remaining stages of the Traffic Management Bill.
	Wednesday 17 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
	Thursday 18 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
	It may assist the House if I confirm that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will make a statement on Monday on the publication of the Penrose report. Next week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will make a statement on Government policy on genetically modified foods.
	[Thursday 11 March
	Transport: In so far as they relate to aviation (6th Report of Transport Committee, Session 2002–03, (HC 454—I and HC 454—II) and Government response to the Transport Committee's Sixth Report into Aviation.]

Oliver Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement, especially the announcement about the Penrose report. I have raised the matter with him on several occasions and on Tuesday I tabled early-day motion 741.
	[That this House notes with concern the long delay in publishing the Penrose Report into Equitable Life and the consequent postponement of an oral statement or a debate on this important matter, which affects the life savings of hundreds of thousands of policy-holders and annuitants; and calls on the Leader of the House to ensure an early statement on the Penrose Report followed by a full debate.]
	Given that it has taken the Leader of the House only two days to arrange the statement, will he announce on Monday that the review of Select Committees that early-day motion 760 mentions is imminent?

Chris Bryant: Ha, ha, ha.

Oliver Heald: It is always good to have appreciation.
	Will the Leader of the House arrange for a copy of the Penrose report, which is obviously complex, to be made available early to Opposition spokesmen? Will a full debate take place in due course on that important matter?
	Is there any news about the date for a debate on the aviation White Paper or will the estimates day debate on 11 March be sufficiently wide to cover it?
	Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there will be a full debate before action is taken to cap local authorities?
	The Leader of the House will know of the increasing concern about the escalating number of allegations of abuse of all-postal voting ballots. What are the Government doing about that? He will know that the Electoral Commission sanctioned a strictly limited and controlled pilot of that system for the European elections in two regions, and that measures have been taken specifically to avoid election fraud. In Monday's European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, the Government are seeking to defy the commission and increase the number of regions to four. Can the Leader of the House tell us how the essential protections will be put in place in the two extra regions, given that there is so little time? Does that not raise the risk that unscrupulous parties such as the British National party, and politicians of that sort, will simply be given a free run to abuse the system?
	Finally, the Leader of the House will know that today is world book day. Has he seen the survey that shows that hon. Members read more than journalists, but that they entirely avoid self-help and mind, body and spirit books? We are said to prefer biographies. In the current political climate, would he like to recommend a suitable self-help book to his colleagues on the Labour Benches? May I suggest "Feel the Fear and Do It Anyway" by Susan Jeffers or, as a suitable fiction title, "No Second Chance" by Harlan Coben?

Peter Hain: On the future business of Parliament, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to assist the House? He will be aware that Lord Lloyd has tabled an amendment in the House of Lords—[Interruption.] This concerns the House of Commons as well. Lord Lloyd has tabled an amendment designed to put the Constitutional Reform Bill into Select Committee. That is unprecedented, against the express will of the Government and it will make it impossible to get the Bill through this Parliament. Will the hon. Gentleman prevail on his Conservative colleagues in the House of Lords to ensure that that amendment is resisted? That is important, because that manoeuvre could wreck the passage of a Government flagship Bill. I am sure that he will want to join me in opposing that. [Hon. Members: "Order."] Hon. Members say "Order", but it is important that a Bill supported by the Government is not wrecked as a result of that procedural manoeuvre.
	I shall now answer the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised. On the Penrose report, as Leader of the House I always jump to attention on the hon. Gentleman's early-day motions. He has obviously had the desired result on that matter, but it was always the intention to make a statement on the report. I also confirm—I am sure that he will welcome this—that the Treasury will be publishing the report in full. I shall draw to the Financial Secretary's attention the hon. Gentleman's request to see an early copy of the report. As I understand it, it is a comprehensive report and no doubt his request will be taken seriously.
	I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when there will be a debate on the aviation White Paper, but there will of course be an opportunity to raise all his colleagues' points during the debate on Thursday, which should go some way at least towards satisfying his repeated requests on that matter.
	On postal voting, I should have thought that, in an era of declining voter turnout, it was in all our interests to encourage greater turnout, whichever party those voters support, to improve the health of our democracy. We face the phenomenon of declining voter turnout across the democratic world. In areas where pilots for all-postal votes in local elections have taken place, turnout has dramatically increased. Is the hon. Gentleman saying, on behalf of the Conservatives—although I understand that this is the Liberal Democrat position as well—that they do not want more postal votes and better access for voters? What are they frightened of? Are they frightened of a large turnout of voters in the north-west of England, Yorkshire and Humber, the east midlands and the north-east of England? I should have thought that he wanted greater voter turnout.
	On fraud and abuse, the Electoral Commission has made it perfectly clear that it is satisfied that the pilots can go safely ahead without any real risk of serious abuse. On the point about having four regions instead of two, the commission listed other regions, including the north-west of England and Yorkshire and Humber, as possible candidates for pilot schemes if the Government so chose. Millions of voters will be given extra opportunities as a result of this, and I cannot for the life of me understand why the Conservatives are seeking to deny those voters in the north of England the chance to vote more conveniently and easily in elections that are for local government and the European Union.
	The hon. Gentleman asked for a full debate on the council tax before any capping takes place. The Deputy Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that, if he has to cap high council tax local authorities, he will do so. It is encouraging that at the moment the average increase seems to be about 6 per cent., which is much lower than it was last year and in previous years. The Deputy Prime Minister intends to bear down on those councils, including Conservative councils, that are pressing for gigantic council taxes at a time when we have put record investment into local government and when the increase in grant settlement for Conservative-controlled local authorities is actually larger, at about 6.1 per cent., than that for Labour local authorities, although I am not sure that I should remind my colleagues on the Labour Back Benches of that. There is no excuse for large council tax increases.
	I welcome the hon. Gentleman's question on world book day. May I remind him that the survey also shows that Members of Parliament read in bed?

Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect the long-delayed Bill to evict the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords? Will he also tell us whether the report in today's edition of The Independent, headlined, "Lords reform in disarray after officials bungle drafting of Bill", is correct? Will he now confirm that, as this is a major constitutional issue, it will be taken in full in Committee of the whole House? Does he recall that, in the votes last year, the option of an all-appointed House, which was advocated by the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor, was defeated in this House by 87 votes—a large majority? As the Leader of the House was on the right side in those votes, I am sure that he will also recall that 332 Members voted for a majority elected second Chamber. It would clearly be a contempt of this House if those votes were ignored, and if a Bill were produced that had the effect of creating an all-appointed second Chamber, without any steps being taken within Parliament to make progress towards completion of reform.
	In those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he is taking seriously our proposition for a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee to examine ways in which we could fulfil the mandate of his Government and his colleagues? He will have seen that many Members on both sides of the House have endorsed that proposal as a way forward. Will he tell us what steps he proposes to take to allow the House of Commons, and the House of Lords, to make progress? I hope that he will agree, as he has been on the side of the reformers, that we have had plenty of consultation and independent analysis, and that it is now time for Parliament to complete this process and bring this long-running Whitehall farce to a successful conclusion.

Peter Hain: I thank the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for voting to extend by an extra day the time that the Higher Education Bill will be considered in Committee. I must also express my amazement that the Conservative Opposition voted against that programme motion, thereby seeking to deny the extra discussion on higher education in Committee that they have been pressing for. That is an extraordinary position.
	On the reform of the House of Lords, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing untoward about the situation in respect of the Government's Bill. It is going through its proper process before being introduced into Parliament, and that will take place when we are ready to complete that process. In respect of the issue that he has quite properly raised in the past on the nature of House of Lords reform, he knows that I voted in a similar Lobby to him on a number of occasions a year ago. It is vital, however, that he join us in seeking to tackle the essential obstacle and anomaly in the current situation, which is the presence of 92 hereditary peers. I cannot for the life of me believe that the Liberal Democrats, with their long-standing policy on this matter, would actually vote against a Bill that sought to get rid of those hereditary peers. I just cannot believe that—or maybe I can, depending on the position that the Liberal Democrats take.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman has had discussions on this matter with the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. He has also quite properly raised with me the matter of a third stage of House of Lords reform, to which I am strongly committed. The Lord Chancellor has indicated that it is our intention to proceed down that road. The hon. Gentleman says that there has been plenty of consultation, but the problem is that there has been no consensus. All the options were defeated a year ago, including the option for a fully appointed Chamber. I note, however, that the House of Lords, as I pointed out previously, voted pretty well overwhelmingly for a fully appointed Chamber. I would therefore find it extraordinary if the Conservatives, Cross Benchers and hereditaries were to seek to defeat a Bill that would maintain for the time being the present situation of an all-appointed Chamber but improve and modernise it by establishing an independent commission, and remove the anomaly of people making laws because a long-deceased ancestor happened to be awarded a peerage for no reason at all.

Julia Drown: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on debt relief and aid, in relation to which several issues are of serious concern at the moment—[Interruption.] Yesterday's debate was on trade justice, and this is an issue that needs further debate. Everybody agrees that Ethiopia needs top-up debt relief, yet the US Treasury spokespeople are saying that more debt relief would simply encourage more borrowing. If we are to achieve the millennium development goals to which all countries are signed up, we need more debate and more action on these issues. In particular, I would like the UK to take the lead and increase aid to 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product, which some other countries have managed to do, and which we should also be able to do.

Peter Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. I know that she will also want to applaud the way in which our Government have nearly doubled the overseas aid and development budget after years of merciless cuts by the Conservatives when they were in government. We are leading the international campaign to tackle world poverty, reduce the burden of debt and promote trade justice, which is in sorry contrast to the Opposition's plans to cut the aid budget by £250 million in the first two years of a possible Conservative Government—an astonishing attack on the poor of the world.

Robert Key: In each of the last three weeks, either the glass doors between the colonnade and Portcullis house, which I understand are manufactured by a company called Portal, or the unreliable escalator up to the Portcullis house main floor, manufactured by Otis, have been unserviceable. The taxpayer spent more than £250 million to improve the infrastructure and working conditions for Members and their staff. Every day, thousands of journeys are made between these premises, so although the Leader of the House is clearly not responsible for the unreliable equipment supplied to the House by those companies, will he please inform the House, Members of Parliament and the hundreds of staff who use those facilities what is going wrong and, when they are broken, how long it will be before they are mended, because we are not serving our constituents well in this way?

Peter Hain: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's question and share his frustration and irritation. It is not right that this should be occurring. My brief from the Serjeant at Arms says that there is a shortage of spares, and that a store of spares is being built up on site to help to avoid such delays. I am sure that the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue on the Floor of the House will ensure that matters are speeded up.

John Lyons: My right hon. Friend will recall early day-motion 247 in my name, welcoming the success of the national minimum wage but calling for it to be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds.
	[That this House welcomes the success of the national minimum wage in giving protection to millions of workers across the United Kingdom; and urges the Low Pay Commission to extend the minimum wage to young full-time and part-time workers by including 16 and 17 year olds in the legislation at the earliest opportunity.]
	A report from the Low Pay Commission is now with the Government. Can he find time for a debate on the national minimum wage and its possible extension?

Peter Hain: I know that my hon. Friend has long argued for that, and the Government have been examining the situation carefully and awaiting the report from the Low Pay Commission. I can tell him that an announcement is due in the coming weeks, and I hope that he will find it an encouraging one.

Andrew George: I was very interested to hear that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will make a statement on genetically modified crops next week. This is the first time that the Government have devoted any Government time to the issue. Has the Leader of the House seen the cross-party motion in my name that appears as No. 46 on today's Order Paper, calling for full parliamentary scrutiny and a vote on Government policy in respect of GM crops? The Leader of the House told the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on 29 January that
	"as soon as we are in a position to do so, we are committed to having a debate. I am sure that there will be no question of proceeding with any decision until the debate has occurred."—[Official Report, 29 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 398.]
	Can he assure the House today that we will have an opportunity for a debate on a Government motion, not just question or statement, and put it to a vote in this House?

Peter Hain: I remind the hon. Gentleman that no GM seeds can be planted this year, because the planting season has passed. The urgency of such a debate has therefore slipped a little. Nevertheless, I am glad that he welcomes next week's statement, and I stand by what I said: the Government are indeed committed to arranging a debate, and we shall do so as soon as is practicable. A number of issues are involved, including the fact that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Minister for the Environment are committed to attending a number of Agriculture Council meetings that are crucial to Britain's interests. It is a question of arranging a time when at least the Minister for the Environment can be present, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are on the case.

Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Cardiff was named the first fair trade capital in the world earlier this week? That means that a certain number of shops, supermarkets and local authority and other businesses stock fair trade goods. Will he join me in congratulating Cardiff council and the other organisations involved, and can he think of ways in which the Government can help other cities to follow Cardiff's example? May we have a debate about that?

Peter Hain: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Cardiff on a flagship achievement in what is indeed a flagship city—the fastest-growing capital city in Europe. Anyone who has been there recently—and the Modernisation Committee is going on Monday—will have seen a dynamic city that is growing fast and proudly taking its place as one of Europe's leading cities.

Nigel Evans: Two weeks ago I visited BAE Systems in Samlesbury in my constituency, and talked to trade union representatives who were worried about the fact that the Government were dragging their feet over the announcement of tranche 2 of the Typhoon programme, formerly known as the Eurofighter. This week I read in a newspaper that the Secretary of State for Defence was minded to cancel tranche 2 and reduce the number of Typhoon aircraft that the Government would buy. That would have a huge impact on manufacturing jobs and defence manufacturing capability. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to come here as soon as possible and make an announcement about the programme's future?

Peter Hain: The Secretary of State will of course be here to answer questions on his allotted day. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the company in his constituency, and the Secretary of State will obviously take careful note of what he said. I might ask, however, how the programme could proceed under a Conservative Government if one were elected, given that the Conservatives are committed to cuts of £2.5 billion in defence spending in their first two years in office.

David Taylor: Many Labour Members were brought up on council estates and would attest to the importance of affordable homes in good condition with accountable landlords. We were reassured when my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), who was then the relevant Minister, said that decent homes would still be a requirement where local authority landlords were retained by tenants. The present Minister for Housing and Planning has apparently announced a change in Government policy that will allow investment only where the private finance initiative, stock transfer or an arm's-length management organisation is operating. Will my right hon. Friend ask him why there is no fourth option, why the policy has changed, and why no statement has been made to the House?

Peter Hain: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will note my hon. Friend's remarks, which obviously came from the heart.
	Total housing investment will be £11 billion over the next two years—a big injection of extra capital and support for housing. That contrasts markedly with the shadow Chancellor's plans to cut spending on housing by £400 million in the first two years of a possible Conservative Government.

Bob Spink: Street youth crime, thuggery and antisocial behaviour are becoming the most urgent, pressing issue in our communities. May we have a debate that will show us how to galvanise police and local authorities into action to tackle this blight on our communities?

Peter Hain: I agree, and I think that the hon. Gentleman's sentiments will be echoed on both sides of the House. In all our constituencies this has become a real plague—or blight, to use his phrase. That is why we have introduced tough antisocial behaviour legislation. It is imperative for police, local authorities and other agencies to apply those laws rigorously and to ensure that we tackle the problem at root and also avoid criminalising, in a pre-emptive way, youngsters who are causing trouble and indulging in yobbery. I am sure that he will welcome the Government's proposals.

Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Office for National Statistics has published information showing that 250,000 people disappeared from electoral registers in 2003, despite a growing population? The last time that we had a serious debate on this issue was when we were considering what became the Representation of the People Act 2000, when rolling registers were introduced. They were a thinned-down version of what I proposed in my Representation of the People Bill in 1993, which was supported by the current Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the late John Smith and many members of the current Cabinet. May we have a debate on what is still a serious situation so that we can put it right? People cannot even abstain if their names are not on registers.

Peter Hain: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his long campaign, which has brought about a much better way of registering voters. We are now trying to increase opportunities to achieve what he wants. As I said earlier in connection with postal voting pilots in the north and the east midlands, it is vital for more and more people to have a chance to vote, so that the health and vibrancy of our democracy is improved.

Nigel Dodds: Yesterday, the Northern Ireland Chief Constable reported a serious level of continuing IRA violence on the streets, particularly punishment beatings and shootings aimed at young people. That comes on top of the Tohill abduction, which has caused a crisis in the political situation. May we have an urgent statement from the Government revealing what action will be taken against the IRA, and in particular to remove the privileges and perks that it currently enjoys under the Belfast agreement, which have been denied to other paramilitary organisations in breach of their ceasefires?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to table a question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for answer on Tuesday, and I hope that he will take advantage of it. But, as the Government have consistently made clear, it is imperative for all parties to ensure that they are not half in and half out of the democratic process. The incident mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was very serious; that is one of the reasons why the British and Irish Governments have asked the Independent Monitoring Commission to examine the allegation that Provisional IRA members were involved in an abduction, in the context of the preparation of its first report on paramilitary activity.

Anne Picking: I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows that feelings are running high on miners' compensation schemes and the fact that miners are losing out. There was an excellent Adjournment debate on the subject yesterday morning. We are rightly exposing the unscrupulous practices of lawyers, but we must also make clear to miners and their families that the end of this month is the cut-off date for them to make claims. Will he use his good offices to encourage them to do just that?

Peter Hain: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. As a former Energy Minister who was responsible for introducing reforms to speed up the process, and as a representative of a former coalfield community, I am passionate about miners' compensation schemes and rewarding all who are entitled to rewards. It is indeed essential for solicitors and, indeed, trade unions not to double-charge. At the same time, we are talking about the biggest compensation scheme in Britain's history—probably in the history of Europe, if not beyond it—in which more than £1 billion has been given to help sick miners and their families on account of the appalling circumstances from which miners have suffered.

Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Leader of the House would want to be evenhanded. He described Cardiff as a flagship city on account of its fair trade policies, so would he also attribute flagship status to the borough of Macclesfield, which has taken a similar decision? However, that is not my real question.
	To return to postal voting pilot projects, Conservative Members are concerned that the Electoral Commission's recommendations were for two pilots, but the Government are seeking to extend them to four. I met the chairman and chief executive of the Electoral Commission yesterday and they told a colleague and me that they had recommended two pilot projects, and that it was the Government's decision to extend them to four. They were concerned that sufficient safeguards were not in place to guarantee the security and integrity of the electoral roll. They believed that, because of the vulnerability and abuse of the electoral register, it would not be a good idea to extend to four pilots at this stage.

Peter Hain: I understand that the hon. Gentleman met the Electoral Commission recently. If he reflected carefully on the matter, he would confirm that the Electoral Commission, in addition to the two top regions of the east midlands and the north-east, identified further regions in the second tier, which the Government could, if they wished, bring into the postal voting system. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the allegations of corruption and abuse are in respect of the existing system, which is different from the proposed system. If the Electoral Commission were seriously worried about abuse and corruption, it would not have recommended two regional pilots in any case.
	What I find baffling, particularly from a strong democrat such as the hon. Gentleman, about such a question, is that the north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside will be taking part in a referendum on an all-postal-vote basis a few months later to establish whether the people want regional government. What is the difference between having an all-postal-vote pilot in June and one in September?

Oliver Heald: It is question of timing.

Peter Hain: It is not a question of time. The truth is that, if the Bill goes through, many millions more people in the north of England will be able to vote with ease from their homes—and Conservative Members should support that. On Macclesfield, I am delighted that it is a free trade—or rather, a fair trade—area and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that.

Ian Cawsey: This week it has been announced that a longstanding nursing home in Hook in my constituency is to close and, despite its proximity to the local school, reopen as a unit for people with personality disorders. There is considerable local concern and anger that that could happen without any local consultation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the local community and its representatives should have a large role in deciding the appropriate nature of such resources, and will he allow time for a debate on the procedures that govern such matters?

Peter Hain: I am concerned to hear that there has been no consultation. I would have thought that consultation should happen—and should already have happened—in that case. I am sure that those responsible will take note of the important point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Pete Wishart: I am sure that the Leader of the House is greatly looking forward to Opposition day debates next week, particularly the SNP/Plaid Cymru motion that suggests that the Attorney-General should produce and publish his advice on the war in Iraq. Given that that provided the legal basis on which we went to war, can the Leader of the House confirm that the Solicitor-General will reply to the debate and, if not her, the Prime Minister?

Peter Hain: The arrangements for which Ministers handle which debates are decided at the appropriate time, and the hon. Gentleman will receive due notice of that. However, the proposition that the Attorney-General, surrounded as he is by Law Officers advising him in great numbers, would have given advice that was anything other than absolutely straight and full of integrity is an absurd and preposterous one. That is what lies behind the allegation that the Scottish nationalists and their colleagues in Wales wish to propagate—and it is not acceptable.
	I believe that we need to arrive at a better position for public life. Currently, virtually any judge is branded a liar, virtually every Cabinet Minister is branded a liar, and the only people who escape branding as liars in the current frenzy of public debate are journalists. They are the ones who are supposed to be telling the truth. Perhaps we should have a debate on the standards of journalism in this country.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that by the time Members return from the Easter recess, more than half of the Refreshment Department staff who serve Members of Parliament as opposed to members of the Government will have received their notice? They will be paying for the changing of our hours, although we are constantly told that the Refreshment Department is making a bigger profit than before. It really is outrageous that the facilities for Members are increasingly limited, while other facilities—desperately needed though they are—are given priority.

Peter Hain: I know of my hon. Friend's views on sitting hours, and she takes a strongly held position on the matter. She is free to continue to argue it, but it is an entirely separate matter from the position of catering staff. I share her concern about that, and I am sure that she will want to address her concerns to the Chairman of the Catering Committee, which is responsible for those matters. She is absolutely right, though she reluctantly conceded it, that income from catering in the House has increased since the change of sitting times. The relationship between the reformed hours and catering provision is not straightforward.

Andrew MacKay: As someone hoping to catch the Deputy Speaker's eye in Westminster Hall next Tuesday afternoon and someone who initiated a debate on Zimbabwe in Westminster Hall 15 months ago, I put it to the Leader of the House—he has an outstanding record of opposing the Mugabe regime—that many of us are deeply disappointed that, with the deteriorating position in Zimbabwe, we have not had a full-scale debate on the Floor of the House. Westminster Hall is not sufficient to debate such a serious matter. I know that the Leader of the House agrees with me, so can he persuade the Foreign Secretary to initiate in Government time a full-day debate on Zimbabwe on the Floor of the House as soon as possible?

Peter Hain: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary—he and I have been in touch with the right hon. Gentleman's office, partly as a result of the quite proper questions that he has recently put to us—is carefully considering the need for a debate in the Chamber. We all share—the right hon. Gentleman and I especially—an absolute revulsion for the state to which Zimbabwe has descended under Robert Mugabe's tyranny. Frankly, with rape and terror camps being established, where people are trained to wage terror on the long-suffering people of Zimbabwe, it seems to me that Robert Mugabe is rapidly catching up Idi Amin as the Hitler of Africa.

Kevin McNamara: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to last Session's early-day motion 63:
	[That this House expresses its sadness that more than 1,748 members of Her Majesty's armed forces have lost their lives through non-natural causes since 1990 and sends condolences to all their families; notes that almost 200 deaths have been caused by discharge of firearms and further that some 200 are described as self-inflicted; notes the growing public perception that the Ministry of Defence response to these deaths is inadequate and distressing to the bereaved; applauds the courage and determination of the friends and families of Scan Benton, James Collinson, Geoff Gray and Cheryl James who died at Deepcut barracks in Surrey; and of Paul Cochrane, Ross Collins, Richard Donkin, Tony Green, Dale Little, Aled Martin Jones, Alfie Manship, Gary Riches, Richard Robertson, Alan Sharpies, David Shipley and Christopher Young who have subsequently come forward to make public their own grievances and frustrations at the hands of the military authorities; believes the Army has a duty of care and protection towards all personnel, particularly young soldiers; believes that the culture of secrecy surrounding the varied cause of these deaths must give way to greater transparency; believes that the environment in which these deaths continue to occur and the absence of a system for prompt, effective and independent investigation of deaths has led to a breakdown in public confidence that can only be restored through a full and independent public inquiry; and urges the Government to establish a tribunal of inquiry without delay.]
	The corresponding provision this Session is early-day motion 78.
	They deal with the demand by more than 200 hon. Members for a public inquiry into the Deepcut and other deaths.
	My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Surrey police today issued its report, urging a broader investigation and inquiry. In its statement, however, the Ministry of Defence, while agreeing to make an early statement before the House, has not indicated the nature of the inquiry. Will the Leader of the House draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for Defence the fact that, when asked what a broader inquiry was, the Surrey police replied that it was one
	"independent of Government and Army, transparent, with powers to call for people and papers, held in public and intimately involving the families of the victims."?

Peter Hain: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's persistence in bringing this matter to public scrutiny. He referred to this morning's statement on the matter, which stated that each of the four deaths in that appalling series of incidents was an individual tragedy in its own right. The MOD is working energetically to see what lessons can be learned, and I understand that the Select Committee on Defence will establish its own inquiry into the matter. I am sure that that will be welcomed by all concerned.

Graham Brady: I reassure the Leader of the House that previous pilots on all-postal ballots in the borough of Trafford in my constituency have resulted in far more Conservative votes than Labour votes. We are not concerned about the electoral implications for the Conservative party of moving to all-postal ballots. However, we are concerned that it is impossible to guarantee the confidentiality of such ballots, and to ensure that intimidation will not take place. May I urge the Leader of the House to reconsider the matter? Will he look again at the advice from the Electoral Commission, and will the Government consider accepting the wise counsel on this issue from another place?

Peter Hain: I have two points to make, although the hon. Gentleman can raise many of these matters in the debate on Monday—

Oliver Heald: Don't worry—he will.

Peter Hain: The shadow Leader of the House says that the hon. Gentleman will do just that. The principles are clear. First, increased turnout is in all our interests. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said that postal voting caused the number of Conservative voters to rise. Although that is bitterly disappointing to me, it is a consequence of increasing turnout. We all have a vested interest in securing high turnout, in the north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside, as well as in the east midlands and the north-east.
	Secondly, if the enterprise were as risky as has been claimed, why has the Electoral Commission recommended that two regions go ahead with postal voting? If there were problems of abuse, lack of confidentiality and corruption, the commission would have said that no pilot schemes should be held. It has not said that, however: it has said that we should go ahead with two schemes and that if we judge that there are sufficient resources and so on to enable four pilots to be held, we should go ahead and hold those as well. That is exactly what it said.

Huw Irranca-Davies: We celebrated St. David's day this week, and it is appropriate that hon. Members walk beneath his portrait as we come into the Chamber from the Central Lobby. Also this week, the Western Mail announced that the greatest Welshman ever was Nye Bevan, the hero of public services. Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate in the near future on the valuable role played by public sector workers? If the Opposition came to power, those workers would come under attack the very next day, and their P45s would be in the post.

Peter Hain: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Aneurin Bevan on winning the race to be Wales's outstanding hero. He was the runaway winner, which is marvellous. As my hon. Friend noted, Bevan introduced the national health service, which has been a gift to all of us. Under Labour, more nurses, doctors and consultants have been recruited. We are beginning to put the NHS back on its feet again, after years and years of cuts. If the Conservatives were to come to office, there would be more cuts in the NHS, and a reduction in the number of nurses.

Patsy Calton: Given the lack of public confidence in the network reinvention process for post office closures, will the Leader of the House read, and act in support of, early-day motion 725?
	[That this House calls on the Department for Trade and Industry to halt forthwith the Network Reinvention Programme of post office closures while an investigation is carried out into flaws in the notification, consultation and decision-making process, which led to inaccurate information being presented to the public and to consultees, including honourable Members and at least one metropolitan borough council, and which have led furthermore to a decision to close a post office being made on the same day that honourable Members and a council were notified in writing by Post Office Limited's Head of the North West that more time was being taken to review that closure, and which have led to the designation of a rural post office as urban without reference to clear criteria including those in the Performance and Innovation Unit report of 2000; notes that Royal Mail now recognise inadequacies in the process and that subsequent closure consultations will be modified but that current consultations will not be changed; regrets the failure of the Post Office and Postwatch to use clear and unambiguous language in their replies to honourable and Right honourable Members; and further regrets the failure of Post Office Limited to transmit a clear, strategic, coherent vision of the future of the Post Office at the heart of local communities.]

Peter Hain: The hon. Lady will know that there is an Adjournment debate on the subject next Thursday, in which she can try to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair.

Parmjit Dhanda: Earlier, my right hon. Friend mentioned the Third Reading of the Fire and Rescue Services Bill, which provides for the regionalisation of fire call centres. That is understandable, as it will help procurement, and make possible the synthesis of the radio communications systems that are used. However, before the Bill was published, Government policy was that we should move to joint service systems covering the ambulance, police and fire services. That approach has been adopted in the tri-service centre in Quedgeley in my constituency, at a cost of £6 million. If there is to be a move to the regionalisation of fire service call centres, will my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate so that Gloucester can put its case—which I believe to be irresistibly strong—to house that regional fire centre?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend has mounted a very impressive and persuasive argument. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will want to listed carefully to it. Indeed, I think that my hon. Friend has already raised the matter with him. I wish him all good luck in his attempt to win the argument.

Roger Gale: The Leader of the House is clearly wedded to the idea that postal voting will re-engage the public in elections, but will he really excite the British public by pledging that there will be a postal vote covering the whole of the UK in respect of any future European constitution?
	Also, the right hon. Gentleman will have noted that today's edition of The Guardian reports that Lord Hutton feels extremely aggrieved at the way in which the conclusions of his report into the death of David Kelly were taken out of context, misreported, and therefore misunderstood by the British public. To assist in the rehabilitation process, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to place in the Library of the House what he has so far refused to place there—a copy of his letter to Greg Dyke dated 19 March, and details of telephone calls by Mr. Alastair Campbell to the BBC between 12 March and 14 April?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is engaging in exactly the sort of activity that The Guardian says so astonished Lord Hutton. I urge him, and everyone else, to accept that the Hutton report was an independent report by an outstanding judge of independent mind. A refusal to accept the report's conclusions has bedevilled the debate in recent weeks, and that is also what seems to lie behind his question.

Liz Blackman: I chair the all-party group on autism, and very much welcome many of the initiatives that have been taken to improve support services for autistic people. However, I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a report published this week entitled "Mapping Autism Research". It highlights the need for more and better co-ordinated research into the causes of autism, and the effectiveness of interventions. In other words, we must find out more about what works. May we have an early debate on this issue, and will my hon. Friend draw the report's findings to the attention of his ministerial colleagues?

Peter Hain: I am sure that my ministerial colleagues will have their attention drawn to the report, not least because the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), is sitting nearby on the Front Bench. He will have heard the eloquent case that my hon. Friend has just made. I have experienced the problems associated with autism through a child in the family of one of my friends. We are beginning to deal with the problem in a way that is much more comprehensive than was the case in the past. I am sure that the points made by my hon. Friend will be borne in mind.

Peter Bottomley: The US authorities have still not formally notified the British Government about the arrest of Krishna Maharaja, who is a British citizen. Will the Leader of the House consider asking a Foreign Office Minister to make a statement, next week or the week after, on the recent judgment that the fact that Khrishna Maharaj may have evidence showing that he is innocent is not a reason for ordering his retrial?

Peter Hain: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of the relevant Minister. Our relations with the US are traditionally very close, and need to be maintained in a spirit of partnership. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to join me in congratulating Senator John Kerry on his decisive victory in securing the Democrat nomination for the election campaign.

Betty Williams: Will my right hon. Friend comment on recent media speculation that the port of Mostyn on north Wales might not be used to transport Airbus wings to France? If true, would not that be a terrific blow to north Wales?

Peter Hain: I am very disturbed by the report, and by the apparent action of the Environment Agency. I have visited the Airbus plant, which is the biggest manufacturing plant anywhere in Europe. It is a vital part of the economies of north-east Wales and the north-west of England. I hope that the matter can be sorted out by the Welsh Assembly, the Environment Agency and the other parties involved. As my hon. Friend said, it is proposed that the wings should be transported by way of Mostyn docks. I have visited those docks: their navigational access to the river Dee is very important, as it would allow the wings to be transported down to Toulouse, where this big new aircraft is to be constructed. I therefore hope that the problems can be resolved speedily.

Michael Jack: Further to the very important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), the Leader of the House may not be aware that last week the television cameras were once again camped outside the gates of the BAE Systems factory at Warton in my constituency, reflecting growing uncertainties about aspects of the company's future and the Eurofighter project in particular. Two months ago, when the defence White Paper was published and I raised the issue with the Leader of the House, he kindly acknowledged the importance of there being a debate on the White Paper. Given how events are now moving and the uncertainties affecting potentially 40,000 jobs in the north-west, may I ask him for that debate so that all the issues can be thoroughly discussed?

Peter Hain: I am sure that the Secretary of State for Defence will note the right hon. Gentleman's impassioned plea on this point. I, too, recognise the crucial importance of the defence industry to the north-west economy, including his constituency. The Secretary of State will want to bear that in mind and, I know, always does bear that in mind in any decisions that he takes.

David Chaytor: Following the previous question and the earlier question from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), as we approach the date of the Chancellor's Budget statement, could my right hon. Friend find time for a debate about the full implications of the Opposition's plans to freeze and cut defence spending, not just on the Eurofighter project, but on smaller projects such as the important Territorial Army base in my constituency or the future expansion plans of the Lancashire Fusiliers regimental museum in my constituency? Can he find time in the near future for a debate on all aspects of the Opposition's plans to cut defence spending?

Peter Hain: I am very concerned indeed to hear that future Conservative Government plans may threaten the Lancashire Fusiliers museum, which is a fine museum, and the Territorial Army headquarters. If £2.5 billion worth of cuts are implemented in any Government programme of defence cuts, such projects will be casualties. It is absolutely vital that we alert people to that fact.

Edward Garnier: May I return the Leader of the House to a matter for which he does have some responsibility, namely the business of this House? May I repeat the request made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House for a speedy debate on the air transport White Paper, in particular in so far as it reflects on the proposed expansion of cargo night flights into and out of east midlands airport? The flights will come low over my constituency and disturb the residents of the many villages.
	The Leader of the House may not be aware that on 23 February I was due to have a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), but unfortunately it had to be cancelled. His private office asked me to write or email to make another appointment. I did so twice on the following day and have followed up that request. On 27 February the private office told me that the Minister's reply was being drafted. Does it really require a great deal of effort to reply to a letter or email to fix a ministerial appointment? I am happy to see the Minister in the Tea Room; I do not have to go to the Department to discuss this hugely important issue. If I cannot have a meeting with the Minister, surely we should have a debate on the Floor of the House.

Peter Hain: I am worried to hear of the hon. and learned Gentleman's experience and I am sure that the Minister concerned will want to meet him as soon as practicably possible, particularly as the hon. and learned Gentleman has been pressing the matter repeatedly and the Department is aware of his concerns about east midlands airport and the implications of the aviation White Paper. He might try to raise the matter again a week on Monday during the debate to which I referred at the beginning of business questions.

Glenda Jackson: May we have an early statement on negotiations with the Government of Tanzania regarding asylum claims? On 25 February the Prime Minister told the House:
	"We are in negotiations with the Tanzanian Government on how we can process claims for asylum nearer to the country of origin."—[Official Report, 25 February 2004, Vol. 418, c.277.]
	Yet on 2 March in a written reply to me, the Minister of State at the Home Office, referring to these negotiations, says:
	"These partnerships are not about processing asylum claims nearer to the country of origin."—[ Official Report, 2 March, Vol. 418, c.892W.]
	Given the extreme sensitivities surrounding asylum claims and immigration at the moment, surely it would be in the best interests of the Government to come to this House and define precisely what they are hoping the aforementioned negotiations will achieve.

Peter Hain: Obviously, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State will want to note my hon. Friend's points, but I am sure that she will agree that it is sensible to negotiate with all countries to make sure that the problem of asylum is dealt with more speedily and satisfactorily, closer to where people originate from. I am sure she will also be pleased that the number of asylum seekers to Britain has halved under the policies that we are implementing and that removals are 24 per cent. up on last year, to record numbers. We are getting a grip on this problem, but getting other countries to help in whatever way they can is part of that process.

Evan Harris: May we have an early debate on the outrageous activities that have been taking place at the Royal Free hospital since 1995, where the inflammatory bowel disease study group has been carrying out lumbar punctures and a battery of other invasive tests on autistic children without proper research or clinical ethical approval, which was granted only for clinically investigative activities on children with disintegrative disorder? Yet the paper published in The Lancet yesterday, partly retracted by some of the authors, reveals that none of the children subjected to these tests had disintegrative disorder.
	This is a serious matter because children are not allowed by law to be used as research guinea pigs. Clearly, any consent to these investigations may well be invalidated by the lack of such ethical approval. Does the Leader of the House feel that the time is now right for a national health service or an independent inquiry? Can we at least have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on this matter?

Peter Hain: I am sure that the Secretary of State for Health is aware of the issue. Certainly, the matter will be taken careful note of, given the way in which the hon. Gentleman has raised it today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Points of Order

Ivan Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. I ask for your guidance and advice to Members of this House regarding parliamentary protocol in the case of Members asking questions in this House on behalf of constituents of other Members when contacted by them. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) recently visited my constituency, met a group of my constituents and returned to the House and asked several questions about my primary care trust, right down to localised issues regarding individual GP surgeries. I understood that if constituents contacted a Member representing another constituency, the issues would be referred back to the relevant Member of Parliament to raise them on behalf of his constituents. Can you, Mr. Speaker, make a ruling or give us guidance for the future on how to deal with issues regarding other Members' constituents?

Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will answer the point of order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. There is a well understood convention in the House that unless otherwise agreed between the Members concerned the interests of electors should be represented only by the constituency Member. It is not possible, however, for me as Speaker to ensure that this convention is enforced at all times. It is best to leave it to the good sense of Members to work out any problems between them. I hope that this is of help to the hon. Gentleman.

Peter Bottomley: On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the years of Labour Opposition, their spokesmen asked a series of questions, sometimes generally and sometimes on individual health authorities covering constituencies. I hope that the convention of this House will remain that Opposition spokesmen for health may ask questions on health anywhere in the country. If we do not keep that, the limits on Opposition spokesmen would be greater than they were when the Labour party was in Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: That is different from the situation that the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) put to me. I see no problem in what the hon. Gentleman raises.

Jonathan R Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last night, we held an important debate on the protection of vulnerable children, during which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was asked about Conservative expenditure and insisted, at column 972, that the Conservatives would match all Government expenditure in the areas of education and health. However, the shadow Chancellor has said that the Conservatives intend to match expenditure on health and schools, which is very different. Is it not essential, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members and people who listen to our proceedings be given accurate information?

Mr. Speaker: I am not allowed to take part in the debates of the House, even the day after.

Bob Spink: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your help and advice, as you are a defender of Members' interests and, like me, seek to give the best possible service to your constituents. Whenever possible, I try to answer all my mail on the day I receive it, but Ministers are increasingly in the habit of predating mail sent to me—sometimes by as much as 14 days before. This morning, I received a letter from the Department of Trade and Industry dated 24 February. As my constituents may think that I, rather than Ministers, have my eye off the ball, will you draw Ministers' attention to the fact that they should not predate mail sent to Members so that we can give our constituents the service they deserve?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the Ministers concerned will read Hansard and note the hon. Gentleman's concern.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that when the statement about new proposals for a supreme court was made, the impression was given that the judges had been consulted and that all was well. However, you will know that the noble and learned Lord Woolf gave a speech in which he made it extremely clear that he is very unhappy about those proposals. Given those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, have you received a request from a Minister to come to this place to make a statement explaining why those two impressions are so different?

Mr. Speaker: The Bill is before the other place and it is a matter for debate in that House.

BILL PRESENTED

Independent Milk Ombudsman, Etc.

Mr. Simon Thomas presented a Bill to make provision for the appointment of an Independent Milk Ombudsman and for his functions, including undertaking investigations and research into the price structure of the milk market; to make provision about the milk industry; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 June, and to be printed. [Bill 66].

ESTIMATES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee),
	That this House agrees with the Report [2nd March] of the Liaison Committee.—[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.

Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Stephen Ladyman: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act.
	The motion relates to a private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis). As the House will be aware, although the Government agree with the general intention underlying the Bill—that carers be supported to ensure their own health and well-being through assessment and access to better information—it is our opinion that the provisions as currently drafted would not necessarily deliver that outcome.
	Our concerns include instances where the Bill, as it stands, appears to seek to duplicate existing legislation and where we are unable to see what it will actually mean on the ground for councils or carers. I appreciate that my hon. Friend's intention in the Bill is to support the Government's objective to support carers by creating conditions that will help to combat carers' experiences of social exclusion, promote carers' health and well-being, provide better information and ensure that they are offered a carers assessment. Those overarching aims mirror those set out in the Government's national strategy for carers, published in 1999. It is important to note that the strategy remains a document representative of the needs and wishes of carers. In addition, the Bill would foster better joint working between local councils and other public bodies such as the national health service, to deliver a more coherent service for carers—an area in which I acknowledge that things have not moved as fast as we would have liked.
	Let me make it clear to the House. This is a private Member's Bill and as such has no funds attached to it. The proposals set out in the Bill, including any amendments, will have to be covered by existing resources, but the fact that there is a money resolution shows that there may be costs associated with the Bill's provisions and that we need an opportunity to debate them. I should also make it clear, however, that the Government believe that, subject to amendments, the Bill will not place an onerous burden on councils.
	The Bill mainly places duties on councils to consider carers and to include them in their normal processes, including their dealings with the health service. Overall, it is about culture change—reinforcing the approaches developed in earlier legislation—and could be described as the "think carers" Bill.
	First, I shall deal with the parts of the Bill where we believe we can work with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon to deliver tangible benefits to carers. I shall then turn my attention to those aspects of the Bill that, as they stand, either require us to be needlessly prescriptive to councils or duplicate existing duties—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Minister is not going to go into the merits of the Bill itself rather than talking about the money resolution.

Stephen Ladyman: No, Madam Deputy Speaker, I intended—

Tony Baldry: Has the Minister seen the cost benefit analysis of the Bill produced by Carers UK? If so, is there anything in that analysis with which he disagrees?

Stephen Ladyman: I am not aware that I have seen that particular analysis, although I have seen much of the data that it contains. I certainly agree with the general principle of Carers UK—that looking after carers is an extremely cost-effective way of delivering care to those in need.
	I was about to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I intended only to identify the issues that would enable me to make the case that by the end of its Committee stage the Bill will not place an onerous burden on the Exchequer.
	An amended clause 1 will ensure that assessment is undertaken in a manner that understands and explores the possibility that carers should be able to participate in life beyond their caring duties and think beyond what they need to continue to care. We all recognise that there is plenty of best practice information and guidance about what constitutes an effective carers assessment for people working with carers of both adults and disabled children. However, we believe that it is appropriate that we have a means to ensure that the few who do not routinely inform carers of their rights to an assessment follow the practice of the majority who do.
	The introduction of the duty to inform in clause 3 will ensure that, for example, during the process of a community care assessment, professionals will have a duty to inform carers that they may have the right to request an assessment of their needs. The right to the assessment exists under the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 and the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, and the clause would merely ensure that carers were made aware of that right. Evidence suggests that that will not significantly increase the number of requests for carers assessments. It is realistic to expect that the majority of carers providing regular and substantial care are already known to social services. It is important to emphasise that we believe that any small increases in the number of carers assessments is likely to be gradual and in line with our stated policy objective of improving performance on carers assessments.
	Clause 4 will also place a duty on authorities to consider requests from social services to develop services for carers and their families in a more holistic manner. The emphasis on whole systems and joint working means that it is vital that councils have the ability to draw on the powers and expertise of other parts of the health and social care system. Carers are a heterogeneous group; their needs reflect not only the varied people they care for but their own diversity.
	Most people accept that partnership working between health and social services is crucial in the planning and provision of services for those who want to continue to live independently in the community. Indeed, working collaboratively is routine in most places, and the clause will help to ensure that the role of carers is recognised in the partnership. We estimate that any costs to local government of implementing those clauses would be very small, and would be funded from existing resource allocations.
	The parts of the Bill that cause us concern were well documented in the Second Reading debate on 6 February. They relate to obligations that have the potential not only to place new financial burdens on councils but to limit their ability to respond to local circumstances. For example, the uncertain scope of clause 1(1), which does not make it clear what social services would actually be required to do if they were under this duty, and the provision of the regulation-making power in clause 1(3) both have unpredictable cost implications. Clause 2 would have us dictate to councils the form and content of their community plans, and it would require a consultation and review process, which would have direct costs to councils.
	Finally, with regard to clause 5, my Department considers that, in substance, that duty already exists under section 22 of the National Health Service Act 1977 and that it will impose no additional costs on authorities. As a consequence, we will table an amendment to remove it from the Bill.
	It is appropriate to address the issue of existing resources because the cost of the Bill must be met from those funds. The House will be aware that we increased the national resources for personal social services by 20 per cent. in real terms between 1996–97 and 2002–03. That is an average real-terms increase of 3 per cent. per annum, and we will continue to increase resources until 2005–06 by an average of about 6 per cent. per annum in real terms. I would be in dereliction of my duty as a Minister if I did not point out that that compares with an average increase of 0.1 per cent. per annum under the previous Government.
	Next year, total social services resources for adults are set to increase by 8.2 per cent., or £775 million. That increase includes a 6.8 per cent. rise in formula spending shares, as well as extra resources that have been provided to local authorities to enable them to expand community-based social care services. That will both improve services for carers and raise the skills and quality of the social care work force. That will ensure that support for carers is provided by appropriate and high quality services.
	In addition, resources for children's social services have increased from almost £3.7 billion in 2003–04 to slightly more than £4 billion in 2004–05. That provides for an overall increase in total resources of some 8.7 per cent. In addition, every council will receive additional resources for children's social services as a result of the Government's decision to provide councils with an additional £100 million.
	Specifically with regard to supporting carers, the carers grant came from the commitment in the strategy to provide funding to ensure that carers had access to short breaks. Subsequently, and in response to requests from carers, the conditions have become more flexible to increase choice and control, improve the responsiveness, quality and accessibility of services and increase holiday and leisure options. It is a tangible sign of our ongoing commitment to carers that the grant has increased annually since it started. It is worth £100 million this year and is set to rise to £125 million in 2004–05 and £185 million by 2006.
	Hon. Members may be concerned by the removal of the ring fence around the carers grant next year. The money will still be paid as targeted grant with the intention that at least that amount of money should be spent on carers. That means that the Government are reducing the prescriptive nature of grant provision in response to councils' requests. The removal of the ring fence allows councils to provide appropriate and responsive services to address the needs of local carers. Just to make sure that councils are in no doubt, however, that will be measured by the development of a new carers performance indicator.
	In the light of that significant increase in funding for councils and the support expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon by the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Bill has, with amendments, the potential to support that group of people to whom we owe such a lot, without imposing additional costs during a time of fiscal restraint. Councils must recognise the crucial role that carers play in enabling individuals to remain independent in the community for as long as they want. However, it must also be appreciated that that often comes at a price for the carer in terms of their health, well-being, self-esteem and employment prospects. I hope that councils will understand and recognise the drive behind the Bill.
	The Bill will need work if it is ultimately to receive Government support. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon and I are both committed to doing that work, and the determination is there to ensure that the seeds of change sown by earlier legislation will develop our public services for the benefit of carers and those for whom they care.

Paul Goodman: The official Opposition support the Bill, and the Minister will remember that we backed it on Second Reading. It offers the prospect of equal opportunities and real help for carers, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) and his Bill team, which includes my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), on introducing it. If we support the ends of the Bill, it follows that we must support the means. Therefore the Minister will not be astonished to hear that we do not propose to oppose the money resolution—indeed, we expect it to be unopposed.
	Naturally, we want to probe the Minister a little further about some of the details that he announced, and I shall begin with a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. Carers UK supports the Bill and believes that it would bring few costs and several benefits. It cites the benefits as reduced health costs, increased work participation rates, reduced state benefits and increased revenue from tax and national insurance.
	On costs, Carers UK argues that clause 1, which lays upon local authorities a duty to promote equality of opportunity for carers, would not be burdensome. It cites provisions in the draft Disability Discrimination Bill, which lays a similar duty on public bodies in relation to people with disabilities, as being more costly.
	Clause 2 seeks to ensure that provision for carers is written into community strategies, and Carers UK states that that would not add substantially to the costs of drawing up those strategies.
	Clause 3 is perhaps the nub of the Bill. It would require local authorities to inform carers that they have the right to an assessment of need, and it would not add substantially to local authorities' costs. On that issue, Carers UK cites evidence gleaned from the Scottish Executive—that duty is already written into the law in Scotland—and the Minister appeared to agree with that point when he spoke on Second Reading.
	We recognise that the Minister does not appear to have read the Carers UK documents, but he will have noted the points. Perhaps he can tell us whether Carers UK is broadly right to argue that the Bill will bring few costs and several benefits and that the money resolution, which we believe will be passed today, will not bring substantial costs to the Exchequer.
	Being relatively new to money resolutions, I have examined the money resolution carefully. It states:
	"That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act."
	I thought, perhaps wrongly, that I saw the Minister smile slightly as he read out those words, which might, to those of us who are new to money resolutions, appear somewhat obscure. The Minister then said that money would come from existing resource allocation. I confess that I am still unsure which particular budget or budgets he expects funds that may be paid out in pursuit of the ends of the Bill to come from. Perhaps he can clear up that matter for me when he replies. He might also wish to spell out whether local government will be fully compensated for what he described as the "very small" costs it is likely to incur.
	Finally, the Minister will recall saying on Second Reading:
	"I am delighted that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) committed the official Opposition to supporting the Bill, at least in principle. We will need to work together to improve it, and I shall say a little more about that in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, the Committee and the Government will need the help of the official Opposition to ensure that what emerges from Committee is a Bill that we can all support."—[Official Report, 6 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 1070.]
	During that debate—the Minister has echoed this point today—he was broadly satisfied by clause 4 and perhaps clause 3, but he had considerable reservations about clauses 1, 2 and 5; in other words, he had reservations about three of the five clauses. It therefore seems reasonable to suspect that he proposes to table substantial amendments to the Bill; in essence, he approves of the principle of the Bill, but he intends to demolish several sections of its main architecture.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I did earlier, that we are debating the money resolution rather than the content or merit of the Bill.

Paul Goodman: Indeed so, Madam Deputy Speaker. I merely wished to express the hope that we might have early sight of any amendments that the Minister might table.

Hywel Francis: I am delighted to acknowledge the support of my hon. Friend the Minister for the principles underpinning the Bill and I welcome the money resolution. I also acknowledge the strong support from the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) on behalf of the official Opposition. We all know of the immense contribution that unpaid carers make, which was estimated recently at £57 billion. The Bill and the money resolution are modest acknowledgments of the labour of love of 7 million carers.
	As we have heard, Carers UK has undertaken a cost-benefit analysis of the Bill and I hope to make use of that analysis in Committee. I will certainly share with the Minister the papers that have been provided. While it is difficult to quantify precisely the costs and benefits of the Bill, it is beyond dispute that our objective is to reduce health costs, spending on state benefits, and the costs associated with economic inactivity. It follows that we aim to increase work participation rates, which will mean increased revenue from tax and national insurance.
	Most important, our aim is to improve carers' health and general well-being. Only carers will be able to measure the true value of the proposed legislation, with its objective of enhancing the lives of carers beyond their caring duties. That is why it has strong cross-party support, as indicated by the fact that early-day motion 602 now has the support of more than 100 Members. It has also received strong support from the Minister for Health and Social Services in the National Assembly for Wales and from outside this House, as we have already heard, from carers, carers' organisations, local authorities, employers and trade unions. For all those reasons, hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked me to welcome the money resolution warmly today.

Paul Burstow: I, too, welcome the money resolution. I listened to the Minister with interest, and I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) on his work in bringing the Bill this far. I also congratulate people outside the House on the detailed work that they have done on the cost benefit analysis that has informed today's debate and, perhaps more important, will inform debate in Committee.
	There is no doubt that carers not only make a huge difference to the quality of life of those for whom they care, but provide economic benefits to the country as a whole in the savings to the NHS. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of £57 billion. The Minister mentioned several of the clauses of the Bill and the concerns that arise about their financial impact. For example, he mentioned clause 1, which I also examined on Second Reading. That clause is drawn so as to focus solely on social services departments, but the Bill would confer a duty similar, if not identical, to those that already exist in race relations legislation and those that are planned for future disability legislation. The regulatory impact assessment for the disability legislation made it clear that substantial burdens would not arise out of a more general duty on public bodies to deal with matters pertaining to promotion of equality for people with disabilities, so it is hard to understand how there could be a greater cost arising from applying a narrower duty in respect of carers. I hope that in Committee it will be possible for the Minister to elaborate on how his Department reached the conclusion that it should be concerned about the financial consequences of clause 1.
	It is worth stressing that substantial economic benefits will flow from the Bill, if it is successful, not least because—according to the Policy Research Institute—we shall need an additional 2.5 million members of the work force, less than a quarter of which requirement will be met by school and college leavers. In other words, we must attract back to the work force people who, for one reason or another, are not economically active. That means that we must find ways in which we can make it easier for carers to return to work by removing barriers in their way. The Bill is a vital ingredient in achieving that aim.
	The Minister also mentioned clause 3, which provides a duty to inform. It is an important keystone provision, because it is the right to know about one's entitlement to an assessment that unlocks so many of the services that carers need. I hope that before the Bill passes into Committee, the Minister will place in the Library a copy of the Department's assessment of its financial impact, so that we can properly scrutinise it as part of our deliberations. I hope that he will also circulate that information to those Members who are fortunate enough to be selected as members of the Committee, so that we can ask the appropriate questions.
	In undertaking the assessment, did the Department separate out the costs that would arise directly as a consequence of the Bill and those that would arise as a consequence of the Bill's making people aware of statutory rights that they already have and for which money resolutions have already been passed? In effect, Parliament has already said that money should be available to fulfil the assessment requirements in previous legislation and the service implications that flow from them. It would be useful if the Minister could confirm that point.
	I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) when he said that we need early sight of any amendments that the Government will table to the Bill, so that we can have a genuine and informed debate about whether they would help to improve the measure or would gut it of its central purpose. The Department published national priorities guidance in 1998 that required general practitioners to identify carers by April 2000. As I said on Second Reading, that target was reset in 2002, and the Minister kindly undertook to write to me on the issue after the debate. He did so, but unfortunately in his desire to respond as quickly as possible he was unable to give me the specific figures that I sought. I hope that he will now be able to provide those figures.
	The money resolution should be passed. This is an important Bill, which will change things for the better for carers, their families, those for whom they care and the wider society.

Tony Baldry: As one of those who spoke on Second Reading, I wish to make a few observations. I hope that the Minister will not misunderstand me when I say that his body language today was rather different from his body language on Second Reading. I can only assume that he has received some minutes from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury saying, "While the Government support the Bill in principle and you can say kind words about it, you must make jolly sure that no extra burdens result from it." The Minister nods in assent.
	There is nothing more frustrating for the House, and especially for Ministers, than private Members' Bills suffering death by a 1,000 cuts, in Committee or on Report, with the Whips putting up compliant Back Benchers to talk a Bill out or make other difficulties for it. Another problem that may arise is that a Bill gets through but the implementation date is delayed.
	All that I ask of the Minister—he is genuinely an extremely reasonable man—is that he talks to the Bill's promoter before the Standing Committee on Wednesday to find out whether it would be possible to reach a compromise and agreement on the amendments that the Government want—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must reiterate the remarks that I made earlier. We are debating the money resolution.

Tony Baldry: But, Madam Deputy Speaker, I suggest that the way in which the Minister moved the money resolution and the language that he used laid the ground for a course of action that we have all seen before. Having heard the way in which he laid the ground today, I am trying to suggest that it might be for the greatest happiness of the greatest number if there could be some discussion before next week's Standing Committee to determine whether it would be possible to find agreement to enable the Bill to move forward meaningfully. A lot of people will be extremely disappointed if it is not possible to pass the Bill as a measure that will make a genuine improvement in the situation for carers in this country.

Stephen Ladyman: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall respond briefly to the debate.
	Several hon. Members asked whether the Government think that the Bill, as drafted, would substantially increase costs to the Exchequer, but to a lesser extent than the amount that we would gain from its benefits. I absolutely and totally accept that there are huge benefits to be gained for society as a whole if the Bill succeeds in its purpose of making it easier for carers to care and get back to work. They would thus pay more taxes, and fewer benefits would have to be paid, and they would be more content and able to continue in their caring role.
	I stress that the Bill is a private Member's Bill and, as such, a budget is not associated with it. If we were considering a Government Bill, there would be detailed assessments of costs and we would have a detailed money resolution so that the House knew exactly how much it would cost. However, if a private Member's Bill is to succeed it must be tightly defined, tightly written and specific. We must all understand exactly what such a Bill means. My worry about the Bill—clause 1 is a good example of this—is that its current wording does not make it clear exactly what councils would be expected to do. We know what hon. Members and the people who drafted it want it to do and we know what carers want it to do. Our job, as a Parliament, is to ensure that the Bill says what we want it to do.

Hywel Francis: May I invite my hon. Friend to sit with me and redraft clause 1(1)? I am sure that we would arrive at a good and effective compromise.

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He and I have already been working together closely on amendments that will be tabled in my name. My officials and I have been working closely with other Departments and Carers UK to ensure that, as the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said, the finally amended Bill does what we want it to. The amended Bill will be unambiguous, so we shall be able to determine precisely the costs that it will impose. If the amendments are agreed in Committee, I have no doubt that the whole House will want to back the Bill on Third Reading and that the Government will be able to back it. We will then all see clearly what it will achieve, it will be welcomed by carers, and it will be all the better for the work that we shall put in.
	I give hon. Members the assurance that the Government are committed to getting the Bill right. We are not trying to emasculate it in any way whatsoever. We are tabling fairly extensive amendments to specific clauses, which I shall try to make available as soon as possible. However, as the hon. Member for Banbury suggested, it will be necessary to convince other Government Departments, Carers UK and carers generally of the merits of what we are trying to do. That takes time, but the work is being done. With that assurance, I hope that hon. Members will agree to the money resolution and that we can get the Bill into Committee to do the extensive work required so that we end up with a Bill that will really do a heck of a lot of good for carers.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act.

Women, Equality and Human Rights

[Relevant documents: the Sixth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2002–03, HC 489-I, on the Case for a Human Rights Commission, and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on 8th December 2003, HC 106-i, Session 2003–04.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Patricia Hewitt: This weekend, millions of women throughout the world will take part in events to mark international women's day. I am delighted that, once again, we are holding this special debate in the House. The fact that we hold such an annual debate and have not one, but two, Ministers for women, and have many more women Ministers in the Government than previously marks quite a change in the culture of politics and government in our country.
	I recently had the opportunity to glance at the riveting diaries of Alan Clark, which are being broadcast at the moment. They give us a gem of an insight into what was going on in the Department of Trade and Industry a little under 20 years ago. Alan Clark was speaking to Peter Morrison, the newly appointed Minister of State for Industry, and perhaps I may quote from the diaries. They say:
	"Peter was full of how, already, he was sorting out his civil servants. They were trying to put upon him 'a female' as head of his private office.
	'I couldn't possibly have that', he said.
	'Really?'"—
	said Alan—
	"'I've had nothing but women in charge of mine . . . I find it rather congenial.'"
	I am sure he did. The diaries continue:
	"'But you see', replied Peter, 'she couldn't carry my guns.'"
	These days, I am glad to say, we have not the first but the second woman Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and the majority of officials who are promoted to the senior civil service in the DTI are women. That represents quite a change in the culture.

Peter Bottomley: Just to protect Alan Clark's reputation, the right hon. Lady might have noticed that he treated men and women the same. For example, when my wife, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley), was elected, he said that she immediately lost her looks, just as he had when he was elected.

Patricia Hewitt: I am sure that the whole House and, indeed, the hon. Gentleman's wife will be grateful to him for that reminiscence. I think that there were some respects, at least, in which the late Alan Clark did not treat men and women the same, but we shall go no further down that track today.
	It is impossible to separate national and international issues. We live in an increasingly interdependent world in which one country's war becomes many other countries' refugee and migration challenges, and one country's pollution or oil spillage becomes many other countries' environmental disasters. Our belief in equality and respect for the equal worth of every individual is not confined to Britain any more than our commitment to the values of opportunity, security and democracy.
	The point about the interdependence of our world is constantly brought home to me—I am sure that this is true of many hon. Members—in my constituency surgery. Last Friday, a constituent from Sierra Leone visited my surgery. Some years ago, he was forced to flee the appalling violence that has plagued that country and now lives here. He first came to see me some time ago during his desperate search to bring his wife here, and I am glad to say that, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, she has now arrived. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend. She holds one of the toughest jobs in government and is always measured, fair and helpful.
	Last Friday, my constituent brought his wife to meet me. She told me how she had been driven apart from her husband and how she had spent five weeks walking along bush roads through Sierra Leone to escape and come here. She showed me the knife scars on her face and arms that were left by the soldier who raped her and who then used the same knife to force upon her genital circumcision. For that lovely, gentle woman and for millions of others throughout the world, human rights and equality are a distant dream. When so many of our newspapers and journalists have nothing good to say about asylum seekers, let us remember, in honouring international women's day, the purpose of the Geneva convention on refugees and the need today, just as much as in the aftermath of 1945, to protect people who have been persecuted.
	Of course, we cannot offer refuge to everybody who needs it and seeks it: no one country can do that. We must work with our European partners and with the wider international community to try to deal with the causes—the conflicts, the tyranny and the desperate poverty—that force millions of people to flee their homes. I am proud—I think we all are—of what our Government and our armed forces have done to help restore peace to Sierra Leone and to start rebuilding its shattered society, economy and system of government. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is ensuring order and integrity within our asylum system, so that decisions can be made swiftly and fairly and the legitimate claim of a refugee is not held up or compromised by those who think that claiming asylum might be a quick route to economic migration.

Tony Baldry: A piece of good news is that on Wednesday the Secretary-General will open the War Crimes Court in Sierra Leone—a special court. Should not the message go out throughout the world that those most responsible for war crimes will, in due course, be brought to justice, whether in Rwanda, Sierra Leone or elsewhere?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is right. His point will be endorsed by the whole House. I am delighted to say that we have played a role in helping to create that war crimes tribunal and the new constitutional court. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will travel to Sierra Leone in a couple of days to attend the opening of the court.
	Last year, the conflict in Iraq was a major theme of this annual debate, and this week has seen more terrible acts of terrorism in the country. We know from our bitter experience of terrorism in Northern Ireland that, on their own, the police and security services can never defeat terrorism, essential and heroic though their efforts are. The only way to achieve peace and security is through the difficult and painstaking process of politics, of building political institutions that can start to bring people together, to reconcile conflict without violence and to create legitimate government. That is what we are supporting the people of Iraq to achieve.
	It was surely no coincidence that this week carnage followed almost immediately upon the Iraqi governing council agreeing proposals for the transitional constitution. Any prospect of a free and democratic Iraq is what the extremists hate and fear most.
	I have spoken previously in the House about the efforts that we are making as a Government to support women in Iraq. I hope that the whole House will welcome the fact—largely unreported—that the transitional law that was agreed by the governing council this week acknowledges the vital role of women in Iraq, and asks for the electoral system to be designed so that one quarter of seats in the new national assembly will go to women. This is not western feminists imposing their agenda on Iraq, as the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), in the magazine that he edits, would have us believe. Iraq has a long tradition of women's education and leadership. Most of its doctors, teachers and university lecturers are women. Without their strength and the contribution of other Iraqi women, economic and social development will be impossible.
	No doubt the governing council has in mind the examples of Pakistan and Afghanistan, which have quotas within their constitutions for women's political representation. Indeed, Pakistan is well ahead of the United Kingdom when it comes to women's representation in Parliament. However, I know that the women in Iraq who have been arguing the case for quotas in electoral law were delighted and grateful for the support that they received from the British Government, both on the issue of representation and in the work that we have been doing in supporting Iraqi women's groups and centres in different parts of Iraq, including the new shelter for Baghdad that has opened recently for women who have suffered violence.

Cheryl Gillan: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the example that has been set in Iraq would be strengthened if perhaps it moved across the boundaries to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, where no women are represented in the majiis? Does the right hon. Lady share my aspiration that the example that we have set in Iraq might set an example for other Arab countries in the area?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Lady makes an important point. While each country has to deal with these issues in its own way, I think that the women of Iraq and the Iraqi governing council have shown the importance that they place on women's representation in creating a secure and democratic Iraq. We in Britain have appreciated the importance of positive action to ensure that political parties and political institutions represent the entire community and not just half of it.
	I began by referring to migration, which is as old as human history. Today, when transport and communications have been revolutionised, far more men and women are moving throughout the world in unprecedented numbers, from south Asia to Saudi Arabia, from the former Soviet states to western Europe, from south to north America, from north Africa to Europe and so on. Some of them, like the constituents to whom I have referred, are fleeing intolerable conflicts; others—often educated women—are seeking better lives. They are drawn by the prospects of jobs and opportunities that are lacking at home.
	In many ways, women's experience of migration is very much the same as men's. However, because in almost every culture and country it is women who are primarily responsible for children and the work of families, and because women have different life experiences and less economic power, their experience of migration is in important ways different from men's. They are more likely to migrate as the dependants of husbands or partners. They are more likely to end up in marginal employment. They are more vulnerable to sexual exploitation. Girls and young women are kidnapped and sold or duped into brothels, waking in pain and spending their days being humiliated, threatened and beaten.
	Only last year, in London, seven women from Moldova and Romania were found who had been forced into prostitution. They were sex slaves in the modern economy. They thought that they were coming to Britain to get a job and a better life. They ended up on a journey of rape and beatings, and in one case forced marriage. The man at the centre of that monstrous crime ring, Luan Plakici, was convicted and sentenced recently to 10 years' imprisonment. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, to the Crown Prosecution Service, to the Home Office and to the Metropolitan police for their work on that case and on other cases to expose and bring to justice those involved in the appalling crime of global trafficking. All the Government Departments involved are working together, and as a result arrests and prosecutions have increased. We are trying to prevent trafficking by spreading awareness of the problem among vulnerable groups not only here but throughout the world.
	That is one side—the dark side—of global migration. For millions of women, it is not like that at all. They and many others have chosen to migrate in search of better lives, to make themselves better off and, as centuries of migration have shown, to make the countries to which they migrate better off as well. The long history of migration from Britain to the rest of the world and back to Britain has created today's multicultural country, and the growing diversity of our country, particularly our cities, is a great source of cultural, social and economic strength. In the global economy, we are increasingly competing not just for investment but for skilled people. The fact that we are one of the most open trading nations in the world and are an increasingly diverse and generally welcoming country is a huge source of strength. Many of our public services, particularly the national health service, have long depended on the work of migrants, especially migrant women, going back to health professionals from Jamaica and other parts of the West Indies who were recruited in the 1950s—ironically, at the behest of Enoch Powell, who was then Minister of Health. As I have recently said in the House, migrants from central Europe and the countries of the former Soviet Union are already making, and will continue to make, an enormous contribution to our economy.
	We need to be sure, however, that our gain is not made at the expense of the countries of origin, which is why the NHS, for instance, has an agreement that it will not recruit nurses or other staff from vulnerable countries, including South Africa, which needs every skilled health worker that it can train. I recently discussed that with Beverley Malone of the Royal College of Nurses, who is profoundly aware of the problem, but there is a danger that agencies operating in other parts of the health and caring services will recruit nurses from countries where they are desperately needed—indeed, they are already doing so—and that those nurses will find their way into employment here.
	We have benefited enormously from the entrepreneurs, both women and men, who have come to our country from overseas, particularly south Asia and the Caribbean. Those entrepreneurs and the new generation of British-born Asians and Afro-Caribbeans provide us with great competitive advantage, as they move into the professions and set up their own businesses. They can use their long ties of family, culture and language with many other parts of the globe, both for their own benefit and that of the whole country. Parween Warsi, for example, moved to Britain from north India in 1975 and started to make samosas for local restaurants. She is now chief executive of S and A Food and is one of Britain's most successful business women. She employs 1,300 people, and has a turnover of more than £100 million a year. She and many others like her are helping to transform and strengthen our economy.
	Members on both sides of the House should embrace and celebrate our diversity and the contribution that women make to it. However, there are strains and difficulties in our changing communities, and many hon. Members are worried about the way in which our Muslim communities have become the target of prejudice. We must remember that Islam, the fastest growing religion in the world, has conferred enormous benefits on the globe. The scholar Bernard Lewis reminds us that at the peak of Islamic power only China had a civilisation comparable in its level, quality and variety of achievement. In the west we use Arabic numerals, which, in fact, are the fruit of the great mathematical learning of India, but they were brought to the west by the Islamic scholars of the middle east. Our values in Britain include respect for different beliefs and faiths, so it is possible to be both Jewish and Muslim, or Jewish and Christian, or Sikh and secular, and be proud of both traditions. Anyone who says that it is not possible to be a good Muslim and a good British citizen is simply talking nonsense.
	Having talked to young British Muslim women in my own city of Leicester, I know how frightened many of them are that intolerance will win. They fear that we might follow the path taken in France and ban in schools the expression of religious belief and identity. We all understand the tradition of secular public space and republicanism in France, but it is a different tradition from Britain's. We will not follow that example, and I do not think that anyone on either side of the House would want us to do so. The Government continue to allow girls to wear the hijab in schools, just as we allow Muslim women police officers to wear the hijab or male Sikh officers to wear the turban. I welcome the decision by the governors of a school in Luton to overturn an initial decision to try to ban the expression of religion in the school.
	There should be no conflict at all between equal rights for women and respect for different cultures and beliefs, but sometimes there is. I wish to make it clear that we will not accept excuses for violating the rights of girls and women. Domestic violence is a crime. As a society, we are no longer prepared to accept the excuse that prevailed for years that the man was entitled to hit his partner or that she provoked it. Indeed, in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill we are initiating the biggest overhaul of the law in this area for more than 30 years. Murder is murder. One in four murders committed in Britain are the result of domestic violence, and they take place in all communities and cultures. However, they cannot be excused or the charge of murder diminished by calling them, in any culture, an "honour killing". We will condemn them and prosecute those who commit them in all our communities. Equally, genital mutilation, for whatever reason, is a violent criminal assault. I welcome the fact, as will all hon. Members, that the new law that came into force yesterday will make it a criminal offence for anyone in Britain to take a girl abroad for that purpose, even if the practice remains lawful in the country to which she is taken.
	In the past seven years, we have secured genuine advances for women in our country. The national minimum wage benefits nearly 1 million low-paid women workers. The pension credit entitles every single pensioner to £102, and there is more for couples. Of particular benefit for women, who have always formed the majority of the poorest older people in our community, is the state second pension, which will do much to reduce the risk of women falling into poverty when they retire because of the caring responsibilities that they currently have. The new child tax credit already benefits 6 million families. As a result of improvements that we have made in the NHS, Britain has experienced the biggest fall in deaths from breast cancer anywhere in the world, which is a remarkable achievement.
	We have introduced the biggest-ever package to support working parents, with increases in child care places, new maternity pay and leave, and new legal standards on family friendly working. After less than a year, those initiatives are already helping parents to choose how they balance work and family responsibilities. There is a new push to deal with unequal pay. Those of us who campaigned for the introduction of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 feel intensely frustrated that despite the advances that have been made there is a persistent gap in the earnings of men and women, particularly in part-time employment. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and I have been taking steps to strengthen the law in this area, in particular with the new equal pay questionnaire. It is also why we are now taking steps to speed up and simplify enforcement of equal pay cases, particularly in those large actions—almost class actions—brought on behalf of groups of workers. We shall simplify the procedures, after consulting in the spring. I hope that we can bring new regulations on how the employment tribunals deal with equal pay cases into effect on 1 October this year, at the same time as the new employment tribunal regulations.
	As we have discussed on several occasions in the House, we have been taking steps across the public sector to undertake equal pay reviews and ensure that the Equal Opportunities Commission has resources to promote equal pay reviews in the private sector.

Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend has done so much for women that I feel anxious about putting another request to her and asking for more. There is already a public sector duty to promote racial equality, and one is planned for disability. Can she yet respond positively to the campaign by the Equal Opportunities Commission for a public sector duty of gender equality?

Patricia Hewitt: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the enormous work she has done, both as one of the first Ministers with responsibility for women and more recently with women in Afghanistan.
	My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am glad to say that we are clear in principle that we shall extend the duty to promote equality within the public sector to the issue of gender equality. We need to see when we can make parliamentary time to put that into legislative effect, but we have accepted the principle.

John Bercow: Given that the right hon. Lady told the House on 1 May last year that, as a result of the important equal pay reviews that the Government had conducted, serious problems of unequal pay had been unearthed, will she update the House on progress in the implementation of action plans submitted to the Cabinet Office on this matter? While she is about it, will she be good enough also to address the issue of whether the Government intend to extend the search for equal pay reviews to contractors and subcontractors to government, a subject in which her deputy took a great interest in Westminster Hall on 25 June last year, but which she acknowledged to be tricky? I would welcome an update.

Patricia Hewitt: As the hon. Gentleman will know, because we have published summaries both of the equal pay reviews and the action plans, we are now taking steps within every Government Department. For instance, in this year's pay negotiations, some of which will cover more than one year, we are taking steps to deal with the equal pay problems that have been unearthed. Some, which are in a sense easiest to remedy, occur within particular grades. They will be dealt with through pay restructuring and the pay increases now being put in place. Others are more difficult to tackle, because they arise in part from job segregation, a point that I shall come to.
	We are considering whether equal pay reviews should be extended to contractors and subcontractors. Many different organisations make a strong case for using what used to be called contract compliance to ensure not just better pay and equal pay, but compliance with environmental standards and so on. As the hon. Gentleman will readily acknowledge, we need to balance the benefits that could arise from that action with the possible costs to the businesses involved. I hope that he will acknowledge the need to do a proper regulatory impact assessment before contemplating going down that route.
	One of the biggest underlying problems of the persistent equal pay gap, particularly as it affects part-time workers, is job segregation.

John Bercow: I genuinely appreciate the right hon. Lady's giving way again. I am not seeking to be difficult. Her point about the regulatory burden is important, and it would be very curious if I, who have often challenged her on it, were to dissent from what she says. May I, on a more modest level, put the matter to the right hon. Lady in the following terms? Recognising that the process of government is difficult, we nevertheless want to make progress. Does she accept that, as a matter of principle, any contractor or subcontractor discovered to have breached the existing law would manifestly be unsuitable for continued work for the Government?

Patricia Hewitt: That is a very modest proposition, with which I would certainly assent, as I am sure my colleagues in the Treasury would. We shall continue to look at this and see how we can spread the good practice that we have initiated in central Government departments much more widely.
	I turn to the problem of job segregation. Six out of 10 women in paid work are working in just 10 occupations—typically, those that pay the least. Within the pay grades and structures of those occupations, women also tend to be concentrated at the bottom, so we need to look at the choices that girls and women are making about the subjects they pursue at schools and the careers and jobs that they then go into, as well as at what we can do about the pay levels within those occupations where women are already concentrated.

David Winnick: In the most senior ranks of the judiciary women are largely absent. Of the 12 Law Lords, just one is a woman; of the five heads of division, one is a woman; of the 37 Lords Justices of Appeal, two are women; and of the 107 High Court judges, only eight are women. Would it not have been useful if last night Lord Woolf had dealt with that matter instead of making his outburst? On one point, of course, he was right, and I voted against the Government accordingly on Monday. Is it not unfortunate that, despite all the progress that has been made, there are so few women among the most senior judges? Whatever progress has been made—and it is very limited—it has been made only since 1997.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point about the paucity of women in the senior ranks of the judiciary. We could say exactly the same about the virtual absence of women within the boardrooms of our top companies, although I am glad to say that there are finally more than 100 women directorships within the FTSE 100. But there are still far too many companies with very few women in senior positions. My noble and learned Friend Lord Irvine, the former Lord Chancellor, and my noble and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs have taken and are taking steps to encourage and promote women within the judiciary.
	Just as we are concerned about the under-achievement of boys in school, we have to remain concerned about the lack of girls going into non-traditional areas of work, such as engineering and technology. Indeed, 95 per cent. of those graduating in engineering are men, while 90 per cent. of students taking a health and social care vocational qualification are women. We know very well the utterly different pay paths and career and training opportunities that will follow from those two facts.
	Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Equal Opportunities Commission is now undertaking a general formal investigation to see how women and men continue to end up in these traditional gender roles and to probe some of the barriers to change. I also welcome the fact that over the last 10 years, remarkably, the percentage of women graduates in science, engineering and technology subjects has increased from well below 5 per cent. to nearly 30 per cent. Over the same 10-year period, the number of girls taking technology at A-level has increased by just over a third. We need to go on encouraging girls and young women to choose those harder but none the less intensely interesting and human subjects.
	I had the opportunity this morning to hear Professor Sir Harry Kroto, one of our Nobel prize winners and an extraordinary chemist, speaking about the dramatic improvements that breakthrough discoveries in his field of chemistry and nanotechnology, and more widely in science, can make to human well-being and to conquering disease, improving our environment and feeding starving people around the world. If we could create that sense of excitement and human possibility among young women and girls, we would see far more of them choosing to go into those subjects. It is important that they do, and that we continue our efforts to bring women who already have those qualifications back into science and technology-based employment, because as we look ahead in this increasingly competitive global economy we need to increase the number of businesses and the number of jobs based on science and technology. That is how we will raise, in the jargon, the value-added of our economy, create better-paid jobs and keep ourselves competitive in a competitive world. We will struggle to do that if we are recruiting from only half the human talent pool.
	The work we are doing on equal pay and family friendly working, and the improvements we are making in child care, are all about ensuring that women can fulfil their potential and make the contribution they want to make, earning a living for themselves and their families but contributing to broader economic success. Those improvements are also about ensuring that women and men have much greater choice in how they balance earning that living with bringing up their children.
	Much has been done—and despite having spoken for a considerable time, I am conscious that there is much else I could have said, which other hon. Members will no doubt cover this afternoon—but much more needs to be done. Before closing, I want to acknowledge and pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality has done as she leads the creation of our new commission on equality and human rights. She will have more to say about that later. That new body, which will bring together all the strands of our work on equality and put it in the much broader context of human rights, is the result of the most significant review of our work on equality in a quarter of a century. I am very grateful not only to my right hon. Friend, but to the chairs of the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the newer Disability Rights Commission and other members of the taskforce for the enormous amount of work that they are putting into creating the new single commission.
	Finally, this is a wonderful opportunity to pay our own tribute to the women who, in each of our constituencies all over the country, work day in, day out to improve the lives of their families, friends, communities and wider neighbourhoods. We heard just before this debate a little about the so often unacknowledged work that women do as carers of elderly or disabled relatives. Millions of women work in voluntary organisations, faith groups, tenants and residents' associations, as women councillors—too few of them—and as governors of schools, on the boards of hospital trusts and so on.
	I am thinking in my own constituency of Councillor Manjula Paul Sood, who is the only Asian woman councillor in one of the most multiracial and diverse cities in our country, and who has played a leading role in the interfaith forum that has helped to ensure that Leicester continues to enjoy strong and good community relations. I am thinking of Dr. Angela Lennox, who founded a pioneering health and community centre in one of the most disadvantaged wards of our city in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and who is now a director of the urban regeneration company that is helping to rebuild the city.
	In my own city we will be celebrating tomorrow and on Saturday through LeicestHER day, which is now in its third year and brings together 1,000 women from all walks of life across the city and the county—groups such as Turning Point in my constituency in Braunstone, which is one of the most disadvantaged wards in the entire country, the Bhagini centre, also in my constituency, the Sharma women's centre and many others. It is a great pity that the new city council in Leicester, which is a coalition of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, has decided, despite all the representations and pleas, to cut the funding to those and many other groups and within a month force their closure.

John Bercow: It must be the Liberals' fault!

Patricia Hewitt: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the two groups are working hand in glove and the responsibility is equally shared. I hope hon. Ladies on the Opposition Benches will urge the council, which has received a very generous above-inflation settlement, even at this late stage to rethink funding cuts that will devastate some of our most vulnerable communities.
	All of us know the wonderful women and organisations in our own constituencies. Today is a day to honour and celebrate the contribution of women and to dedicate ourselves anew to spreading prosperity and opportunity, justice and security to women all over our country and all over the world.

Caroline Spelman: We welcome the opportunity to discuss the position of women, close as the debate is to the date of international women's day on Monday and the women's world day of prayer tomorrow. There has been some role reversal today between the Minister and myself. In previous years, when I was responsible for the international development brief, I focused primarily on international aspects, whereas the Minister focused on domestic aspects. Because we had a debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday on the international role of women, I shall focus on the domestic aspects today. I am well supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who will no doubt draw on his experience of handling the international development brief, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), the Chairman of the International Development Committee, who will provide an international perspective.
	Fairness and equality are surely two of the most fundamental human rights, yet the very fact that we are having the debate underlines the fact that there is still some way to go in delivering those rights. There are so many sections of society where it could be said that equality has yet to take full effect. Although the issues that I shall raise today concern discrimination experienced by women in the workplace, it is important to acknowledge that the pursuit of equality applies to a broad spectrum of people disadvantaged in society, from those with physical disabilities through to those discriminated against on the grounds of race, religion or gender.
	Discrimination in all those guises is a symptom of a society that is ill at ease with itself. The example given by the Minister of only one Asian woman in local government representation is one indication that, as a society, we are not yet at ease with ourselves in this area. The continuation of gender discrimination when over half the UK population is female should trouble all of us in the House, men and women.
	One of the totem issues is the gender pay gap, which literally short-changes so many women. Speaking of the gender pay gap often brings to mind examples of women in senior professional roles being paid significantly less than their male counterparts. That is an enduring problem that provides stark examples. In the financial services industry there is a pay gap of more than 40 per cent. between men and women. There are industries where, even at the top of their professions, women have not succeeded in closing the gap, as we would hope. It is an enduring problem that has still to be satisfactorily addressed. It is right to focus on it today. One need only look at the statistics from the Equal Opportunities Commission, which found that example of the pay gap in the City.
	Women have struggled for decades successfully to enter professions that have been traditionally male dominated, yet have often found that once they have done so they face a battle to be paid the same as men. Similarly, as regards women at the start of their careers, it should be a source of shame to us all that in the world's fourth largest economy a gender pay gap develops within just four years of an evenly matched male and female graduate joining the work force.

Angela Browning: Is my hon. Friend concerned about the propensity of women graduates automatically to go into secretarial and clerical jobs straight from university, which they do in much higher proportions than do men? Does she agree that more effort could be made to help women when they consider career options as they approach graduation?

Caroline Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend. I am sure that she will recall that when were considering our career options at university we had the famous careers advisory service. It is not so much legislation that is required as giving women advice to encourage them to aim high with the qualifications that they have. I am afraid that that problem has not been solved since she and I graduated.

Angela Browning: I have to tell my hon. Friend that I have the advantage of not having had a university education. I went into further education, which stood me in good stead through the years.

Caroline Spelman: There may be a lesson in that for us all.
	Before I entered the House, I spent many years in business, notably in a sector that is definitely regarded as male dominated—agriculture. I was particularly lucky, because I had a good education and what my husband described as an in-built determination, both of which helped me to hold my own in a male dominated working environment. That proved a particularly useful grounding in view of my later transition into politics. Although I was fortunate enough not to experience real discrimination, I always knew what my rights were and the avenues that were open to me to secure them if they were not being afforded to me.
	The women whom I want to spend most of my time discussing are not so well placed. The Minister singled out the example of women in low-paid, part-time employment. Those women tend to fall into the category not of high fliers in the City or in the legal profession, which is now attracting more women than men—an interesting transition—but of employment in what are sometimes regarded as low-skill jobs where there is a high degree of occupational segregation. In other words, high concentrations of women are employed in the same professions. The Minister identified that as one of the main contributory factors in the gender pay gap—I am glad that we agree on that.
	Occupational segregation has been singled out by the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Fawcett Society. I pay tribute to them for their work on trying to expose and overcome the issue, with which hon. Members on both sides of the House will be familiar. It has come to represent one of the major obstacles to eradicating low levels of pay for women because the absence of men from a particular profession makes the comparison of salaries between genders impracticable. That creates a type of professional inertia, whereby shortfalls in women's wages are masked because they are not apparent in the context of a female dominated payroll.
	A case in point is the social care sector. Last month, I had the privilege of addressing the annual Topss conference in Nottingham, where I heard many people discussing the problems facing women employed in social care. More than 92 per cent. of the social care work force are women, and 50 per cent. work on a part-time basis. The average salary for women employed in social care is £5 an hour. That offers an interesting comparison with a woman working in a bar in a town centre, who could be expected to earn approximately twice that amount. That leads me to ask what value we as a society attach to the roles carried out by women. The social care sector is in crisis, and the additional costs imposed on the profession through regulation have not helped the situation. Striking a balance between closing the pay gap and carrying out an impact assessment of the sector's capacity to afford it will be difficult, but not insurmountable.
	At the conference, I was given to understand that many women who are employed in social care are required by the provisions of the Care Standards Act 2000 to undergo checks with the Criminal Records Bureau. That is understandable because they are dealing with vulnerable people, but in many cases they are required to pay for their own checks—I learned that that can cost them as much as a day and half's salary. That is a significant cost for a group of women who are not well paid as it is.
	Twenty years after my party introduced the equal pay for equal work amendment to the Equal Pay Act 1970, there are still appalling examples of women being underpaid for the work that they do because occupational segregation by gender has led to a failure in the benchmarking process.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Does the hon. Lady agree that the advent of the minimum wage dramatically improved the lot of women working in the care sector? Prior to its introduction, they earned approximately half their current income, so it has made an enormous difference to them.

Caroline Spelman: Of course I acknowledge the help that the minimum wage has brought to low-paid women, and I shall talk about its impact later. In the social care sector it has had a ratchet effect, so the lot of the lower paid may not have improved in relation to others further up the career ladder because the salary base has been raised across the sector. However, I acknowledge that in absolute terms their pay has increased.
	It is an uncomfortable irony that in professions that remain male dominated, and which women have to overcome great odds to penetrate, it is far easier to identify and resolve gender pay inequalities than it is in professions that have traditionally been the natural territory for female employment.
	Occupational segregation is particularly acute in the field of part-time employment. As 44 per cent. of the female population are employed in a part-time capacity, the number of people affected by the phenomenon could hardly be described as small. The current differential in hourly pay between men working full-time and women working part-time is an astonishing 40 per cent. In practical terms, that means that for every £1 that a man earns each hour when he is working full-time, a woman working part-time can expect to earn 60p. According to figures produced by the Equal Opportunities Commission, the divergence between men and women working full-time stands at £559 per month. That is not only a dispiriting statistic, but the model by which progress towards equality of pay is judged. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House agree that we have to do much more to address that.
	I share the concerns of Incomes Data Services, which stated in its report of December last year:
	"The earnings opportunities for part-time women and their relative position in the labour market should not be overlooked as attention is focused on the narrowing of the full-time gender pay gap."
	I accept that this year there has been an improvement on last year in terms of the overall gender pay gap, but we cannot afford to be complacent about that group of part-time workers. I am glad that the Minister raised that issue.
	There are various reasons why women choose to enter part-time work. It is often because they have to balance work with the needs of raising a family and are best able to do so by working part-time rather than full-time. Another reason is that for many families, the woman's income is the secondary household income and consequently the reduced salary is more readily accepted as the dividend for a greater work-life balance. That acceptance is a terrible betrayal of all those families in which, for whatever reason—bereavement, separation or injury—the mother's job is the sole or primary household income.
	For others, part-time employment is not always a result of lifestyle choice, but of necessity and limited alternatives. That applies especially to lower-skilled part-time jobs, which enable women with a limited educational background to enter the workplace without always requiring specialist skills and experience. Women with limited employment opportunities and education are often badly disadvantaged in a predominantly single-sex working environment. Some women are prepared to take jobs with skills demands that are significantly below their professional abilities solely because it is the only way in which to secure the flexibility in working patterns that their family life demands.
	The impact of occupational segregation in the part-time sphere would be significantly reduced by an expansion in the range of part-time jobs. That would not only give women workers more options to choose employment best suited to their abilities, but help to dilute the female concentration in part-time work and enable greater scrutiny of the part-time gender pay gap. A greater range might lead to an increase in male part-time employment.
	Occupational segregation in full-time and part-time employment does not only present problems with pay scales in the immediate term but fosters longer-term difficulties in training and professional development, which create barriers to salary advancement. Eighty per cent. of care staff in England have no qualification for their work and only one fifth of those who embark on modern apprenticeships in social care complete the course. Last month, research by the Learning and Skills Council found that of unfilled positions, 20 per cent. were due to lack of applicants with the requisite skills. That is not uniquely applicable to women, but it is worth being aware that the current occupational segregation of men and women perpetuates the skills shortage.
	Let us consider two examples. The construction industry has a 99 per cent. male work force. In engineering, only 8 per cent. of the work force are women. In both industries, more than 30 per cent. of the vacancies are due to a lack of available candidates with the relevant skills. Clearly, the continuing gender domination in those professions means that more than half the population is excluded from such opportunities.
	Society has not progressed a great deal from 20 years ago, when Kylie Minogue's debut character Charlene in "Neighbours" caused widespread consternation by wanting to pursue a career as a mechanic. Sadly, the concept of women entering those professions remains something of an anathema, to the detriment of our work force as a whole.
	Occupational segregation is a large factor, but not the only factor in denying many women the salary that they deserve. I should like to consider another important element. Many women are simply not aware of their statutory entitlements and even more do not know how to engage grievance procedures to rectify the position. Again, the problem is not exclusive to women in low-paid, less vocationally skilled professions, but it is more common among them. I am worried that we are still not doing enough to reach out to a section of working women who, for various reasons, cannot secure their rights in the workplace.
	There has been much debate recently about the role of immigration in fulfilling the United Kingdom's work force needs. Let us try to consider the matter without digressing into the entirely different issues of asylum seekers and refugees. It is clear that there are many low-paid, low-skilled, often manual jobs in this country that our indigenous population is simply not prepared or is reluctant to do. Consequently, the incoming migrant populations fill the labour gap, but they are the least likely to be aware of their salary entitlements and are unlikely to comprehend the logistics of taking their position to a tribunal. Language is an obvious factor in perpetuating such disadvantages.
	However, even among indigenous female employees, many women, such as those who joined the work force later in life, do not feel sufficiently empowered to challenge the position. Empowerment is important because it relates to the broader issue of women often being insufficiently assertive in the workplace. That applies across the board and is part of the explanation of the overall gender gap. It often stems from the different priorities that women attach to their working conditions and a more general reticence to discuss, let alone compare, wage packets and ask for more.
	As I acknowledged earlier, the minimum wage has raised the most basic salary levels for many women. However, we must also acknowledge that the minimum wage for some women in some low-paid sectors is in danger of becoming a de facto standard industry wage. That is undesirable. It would be disappointing if the minimum wage became a device whereby employers could abrogate all responsibility for paying their staff anything more than £4.50 an hour.
	It might be helpful to identify the sort of women who are most vulnerable to salary discrimination. Often, they include those with limited academic education and those who are returning to work after taking time out to bring up a family. I am sure that many women would identify with me when I say that often, when one takes time out of the workplace, there is a loss of self-confidence, which makes it difficult for a woman to assert herself early on to secure better terms of pay.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is making a typically thoughtful speech. Will she say something further about crude pay discrimination: unequal pay for exactly comparable work—a phenomenon that she has recently helped to highlight—in the public domain? Will she also comment on the related problem of historical anomalies in the way in which posts are graded in organisations? That should concern us all.

Caroline Spelman: Those important questions warrant lengthy exploration. Although I am conscious of the time, I shall dwell on them for a moment. Legislation can do so much for comparable pay. Conservative and Labour Governments have introduced such legislation but, clearly, it has not proved sufficient. As I was in the throes of explaining, we must also overcome cultural factors, such as reticence to push for comparable terms of pay and a reluctance to ask what a man in the same job is being paid. I have the advantage of being a woman whereas my hon. Friend is a man, so only I can look inside my soul and begin to answer why women generally tend to be less assertive.
	I shall risk saying that perhaps women regard work somewhat differently from men. Perhaps they are generally less concerned about status, and about status being measured by pay. Their job satisfaction comes from a range of factors. Perhaps it is important for men to have status that is measured in terms of pay. However, one factor is common to both sexes. If one does not know what one's colleague is paid, one does not have the information to conduct the necessary negotiations to ask for a fair return. Information is power. However, I would not go so far as to say that the problem would be immediately solved by some mandatory rule about publishing all rates of pay. In some organisations with best practice, such as management consultancy, where there is a great deal more transparency in the standard salaries and bonuses paid, it can become difficult to justify, in a rote way, variation at the bonus level. It is often linked to the company's profits. It is difficult to apportion how well the company is doing to the different amounts of effort that employees put in. That often cannot be resolved by a simple number.

Meg Munn: Does the hon. Lady agree that aspiration is also crucial? The Government are seeking to do more to encourage the aspiration to go to university of many young people from poorer backgrounds, but traditionally many women and girls, when at school, have not had their aspirations raised in relation to the sort of employment that they could achieve. They have therefore entered and continued in, perhaps for life, jobs that have not stretched their abilities, so this country has not fully benefited from their skills and talents.

Caroline Spelman: The hon. Lady is in complete agreement, in essence, with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), whose point was exactly the same. We need to empower women, when they are young by raising their aspirations in relation to equal opportunities, and in later life by helping them to become more assertive in asking for a fair wage. If low-paid women knew that, for every hour that they work, they earn only 60p for every £1 that a man earns for doing exactly the same full-time job, they would be quite angry. That would be a healthy reaction, which could spur on the assertiveness that they need to ask to be paid on equal terms. That would be quite justifiable.

Vera Baird: rose—

Caroline Spelman: We have already had quite an extensive digression on how culture interacts with legislation. Our society's culture, and the question of why women are in their current position—which we all acknowledge is unacceptable—is an important debate, but it is open-ended because we all know that it is not easy to change culture. That is not as simple as passing legislation, and it will take many different effects to bring it about. If the hon. and learned Lady's point is separate from that, I shall give way, but otherwise I would prefer to proceed.

Vera Baird: I want to comment on the point about asking for better pay.

Caroline Spelman: I shall give way.

Vera Baird: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Does she agree that one of the best ways of facilitating a more aggressive search for better pay for women is to encourage them to join trade unions? Will she congratulate the Government on their recent allocation of substantial money to the trade union movement to enable it to modernise and to cope adequately with the demands that we must encourage in women?

Caroline Spelman: I anticipated that intervention when I was writing my speech, as hon. Members might expect. I do not think that trade union membership is a panacea. The trade union movement has been around for a long time, but we still have a pay gap between all men and women of 18 per cent., and a significantly larger one at the lower end of the pay scale. I learned from the Topss conference that average annual membership of a trade union costs about £200 a year. That is a factor for low-paid women. I acknowledge that Labour Members are likely to make that point, but I invite them to recognise that trade union membership is not a magic answer. Just becoming a member of a trade union will not necessarily change the culture in our society.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: rose—

Caroline Spelman: I should like to proceed, if the hon. Lady does not mind.
	Sometimes, for whatever reason—such as a different ethnic, linguistic or cultural background—women are not aware of their entitlements. I have mentioned migrant workers, who are in a particularly weak position and in need of much help. Perhaps one of the saddest examples is of older women who, for historical reasons, belong to an age of deference. Although as people in public life we might feel that that age of deference is long gone, those women's upbringing in that period means that their whole attitude towards employers is of an unquestioning approach to authority. Such women are often subject to discrimination. It is right to acknowledge that that exists in our society. Those women are often further prevented from speaking up because they were denied the learning opportunities that men of their generation were offered. To put it in stark terms, some of those women are afraid of making waves with employers because they fear redundancy and recognise that their prospects of securing alternative employment, as they near retirement age, are increasingly limited.
	Retirement itself presents no quick release from the injustices experienced by many women because, as we all well know, the pension system in the United Kingdom discriminates significantly against women. It is increasingly clear from the demographic pattern in this country that we will have to take more urgent action to remedy that. Women live between seven and 10 years longer than men on average, yet pension provision for women—who will have to depend on it more—falls short of what men receive. More than twice as many women as men of pensionable age rely on means-tested benefit, and the Age Concern survey that I mentioned last week during questions to the Minister for Women and Equality shows that the average income of retired women consists of just 32p for every £1 that men receive. Again, that is a powerful piece of information that could spur on many older women, if they were aware of it, to more assertive action. Incidentally, I pay tribute to the female members of the pensioners convention in my constituency, who very definitely are assertive.
	Perhaps the most alarming statistics of all are that 91 per cent. of all those without a full basic state pension are women, and that one in four single women pensioners now live in poverty. The reasons for that are numerous and complicated—complicated enough to warrant a debate of their own—but inflexibility in the eligibility criteria for state pension provision is clearly a major factor. One problem with the pension credit is that it assumes that everyone is entitled to the full contributory pension, but sadly that is not the case for many women, who have not met the qualifying criteria. Unless I am very much mistaken, the Pensions Bill that has just received its Second Reading, which I have scanned, does not specifically address the problem of the underprovision of pensions for women.
	Gender discrimination clearly permeates the lives of women throughout the working and retirement periods, and it is the challenge for us all, not least women such as me who are involved in the legislative process, to try to arrest that. Should we fail, we will be condemning future generations of women to levels of pensioner poverty that are completely at odds with the advantaged position of a wealthy western power.
	As with all the biggest problems that society has to overcome, there is no simple solution to this one, and it would be erroneous to suggest that the problems that I have mentioned can be overcome solely by legislation. The reality is that we need to complete the cultural changes that were initiated 86 years ago when women were first given the vote. Our country's mindset still has some way to move forward from the preconception that women somehow justify their inferior salary, or in some way deserve the disadvantages that they often experience in the workplace.
	Legislation can in many ways precipitate and advance such changes, but it cannot be the sole driver. Attitudes are changing and inequalities are becoming increasingly unacceptable, but if we consider that, more than 30 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970 was introduced, women are still being paid on average 18 per cent. less than men in a full-time context, and 40 per cent. less than men in a part-time context, it behoves all of us in the House to strive for a better deal for women.

Meg Munn: I welcome this debate on women, equality and human rights. It is very timely, and there are important issues to be discussed in this field.
	I shall focus my speech on specific issues relating to women with learning disabilities. It is estimated that, every year, 1,400 people with learning disabilities are victims of sexual abuse. Most of those are women. Furthermore, all too often in such cases, the abusers of women with a learning disability are not brought to justice. I welcome the Government's measures, introduced in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, to protect people with learning disabilities from sexual abuse. Those will come into effect this May. Wherever possible, the rights of such women should be protected along with the rights of other people through mainstream legislation, as in the 2003 Act, but there should also be specific measures that recognise those women's specific needs, where that is appropriate.
	The criminal law should not intrude unnecessarily on the private lives of adults, and people with a learning disability should have the same right to engage in sexual activities as others. We must recognise, however, that some people, especially those with a severe learning disability, may be particularly vulnerable to abuse because of their circumstances. That could affect their ability to consent to sexual activity in the same way as other adults. Our law must provide full and robust protection when sexual activity is not consensual.
	It is important that women with a learning disability have the right to engage in sexual activity, but we must also ensure that they have protection against abuse and rape. In providing such protection we must recognise their particular vulnerability. They are twice as likely as other people to be victims of crime, and it is estimated that they are four times as likely as people without a learning disability to be the victim of a sexual offence.
	Every woman with a learning disability is an individual. Every woman has different needs and different abilities, which should be recognised. However, we should also acknowledge that people with a severe learning disability might not be able freely to consent to sex because they do not understand the nature and consequences of sexual activity. They might also have limited choices and a limited understanding of relationships. That is what makes them so vulnerable, because they could be viewed as an easy target. They could be easily influenced, bribed, intimidated or threatened by others.
	People in a position of power or who are caring for women with a severe learning disability could use that position to coerce or deceive them. Such people could, for example, use threats such as, "I will tell your parents" or "I will tell your friends." That might worry the woman in that situation, whereas an adult without a learning disability might just ignore it. Such actions can take on much greater significance for a person with a learning disability. They are particularly vulnerable to people in a position of authority who care for them. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) mentioned some of the measures in the Care Standards Act 2000 that have been put in place to protect not only adults with a learning disability but children and older people, and such measures are important for the reasons that I have just outlined.

Julie Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very difficult to balance the acknowledgement of the needs of women with learning disabilities with the need to protect those women?

Meg Munn: Yes, that is a difficult balancing act. However, the fundamental idea—the human right, indeed—that underpins everything I am saying is that people with learning disabilities are people first, and that they should have the same rights as everyone else. It is our responsibility to ensure that our legislation does all that it can to enable people to achieve that equality, however difficult that may be. We recognise the difficulties encountered by people trying to achieve that, and we must therefore take the issue seriously. It is high time that we highlighted it to a greater extent.
	Before the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the law was clearly unsatisfactory, and terminology such as "mental defective" was demeaning to vulnerable adults. I am pleased that progress has been made in this area. By making provision on specific offences in relation to the sexual abuse of people with a learning disability, the legislation gives protection while maintaining the right of people to engage in consensual sexual activity.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the remarkably sensitive approach that she is taking to the very real problems experienced by many people with learning difficulties. Does she agree that there have been very few Acts passed by this Government that are as important as the Sexual Offences Act in terms of ensuring that such people—particularly women—are protected and afforded the same rights under the law as everyone else in this country can expect?

Meg Munn: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. I shall say something in a moment about how forthcoming legislation will be able to do more for people in this situation.
	Although the new offences have been created and there is now greater protection, we must be ever-vigilant, because there are still cases in which the Crown Prosecution Service or judges might decide not to proceed. For example, they might take the view that a person's word cannot be relied on. The woman or man involved might not have very good communication skills, and extra help and support might be needed to enable them to express what has happened to them. These important issues must be considered if justice is to be done.
	When that does not happen, the legal system fails to protect people with a learning disability. It not only fails to achieve justice for someone who has experienced an awful offence, but it could leave the person who has committed the offence free to reoffend elsewhere.

Betty Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is still a grey area in the legislation, in that if a young woman aged over 18 were to fall victim to a very influential male friend, her parents—who might be very close to her, having looked after her until she attained the age of 18—would have very little power to intervene? There are cases in which young women find themselves in court in serious circumstances because they have fallen victim to an influential male friend.

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting those circumstances. I am about to move on to talk about the experiences of adults with special needs—be they learning disabilities or other needs—who go to court following an offence being committed and a charge being brought. The all-party parliamentary Voice group—which is supported by the organisation Voice UK, of which I am the chair—met earlier this week. We discussed court processes and heard from Dame Helen Reeves, who heads Victim Support, about the work that that organisation has done to provide a witness support service. She explained the process by which any person who has to give evidence in a trial—especially a trial of a difficult or sensitive nature—can be helped to prepare for their appearance in court. She also highlighted the difficulties involved in providing that service to people with learning disabilities.
	A woman who has been subjected to a sexual offence, or her carers, might not have realised that support was available, or the witness support service run by Victim Support might not have been notified that the woman had special needs. A woman could arrive at the court without anyone having done any preparation or put in place support services to enable her to do her best to give evidence in difficult circumstances.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I agree with so much of what my hon. Friend is saying. I also acknowledge that, without the legislation passed by this Government, we would not even be discussing this issue today. The machinations and detail of what happens pre-court would simply not be an issue. It is an issue now, however, and the desperate shortage of people with a detailed understanding of the wide continuum of learning difficulties is exacerbating the problems involved in getting many cases to court. Does my hon. Friend have any idea how we can solve that problem? Perhaps we could work towards the inclusion of people involved in education and the criminal justice system—I do not know. Does she have any ideas?

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That was precisely the issue discussed at the Voice group meeting earlier this week. Some money has been invested in a programme to try to support the development of better services for people with learning disabilities. I understand, however, that Victim Support is still not able to access that funding to train volunteers in that special work. It has volunteers who are experienced in the court process and in preparing people to give evidence in court, but they do not have experience of working with people with learning disabilities. The organisation sees a real opportunity to begin to work in partnership with the organisations that are experienced in working with adults with learning disabilities, to develop those services and move the situation forward.
	What we see at present are poor assessment of people's needs, uneven availability of services and lengthy delays in cases coming to court. As we know, delay in a case coming to court is stressful for anybody. For a person with a learning disability, however, understanding why that delay is taking place and having to give evidence perhaps a year on from when the offence took place is not only clearly traumatic but, in their particular circumstances, may cause more difficulties in terms of their ability to give evidence.
	As we have discussed, protecting women from abuse cannot be done only through changing the law. Once the law is implemented and used by the police, the provision of support and counselling services alongside that is crucial for people with learning disabilities who have been abused. I want to move on to discuss further opportunities in the legislative programme to improve the situation of those with learning disabilities who have suffered abuse.
	The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill is particularly welcome for all sorts of reasons. One of the issues that it addresses is common assault, which is not currently an arrestable offence. In effect, that prolongs the amount of time before the police can take action in relation to specific offences of violence that are deemed to be common assault. That can extend the amount of time in which the person who is subject to assault is susceptible to further offences or victimisation. It is therefore welcome that the Bill proposes that common assault be made an arrestable offence, which would give the police immediate powers to act when a person believes that immediate and unlawful violence will be used against them.
	The Bill also includes as possible offenders people who have frequent contact with the victim. In that regard, I suggest that further protection could be given to people with learning disabilities who suffer this kind of violence, of whom the majority, as I have said, are women. If that were extended to include "paid and volunteer carers"—an amendment of four words—it would offer greater protection. People with learning disabilities these days live in a range of settings. It is welcome that developments over many years mean that people are able to live in settings that maximise their independence, rather than our assuming that they should live in a setting in which everything is provided and in which they are not encouraged to do as much as they can. That is in line with the Government's expectations set out in the White Paper, "Valuing People". Many people with learning disabilities will therefore be living at home with their parents, with other relatives, or in small group homes—environments that would not necessarily be deemed to be part of the regulated residential sector. Adding an amendment to include paid and volunteer carers would therefore provide much greater protection across the range of residential facilities in which people with learning disabilities live.
	Secondly, I suggest a further amendment to the part of the Bill that deals with the offence of causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable adult. There should also be an arrestable offence of causing or allowing the mistreatment or neglect of a vulnerable adult. I argued that there are benefits to having this offence in the new legislation rather than seeking to deal with it through mental health or mental capacity legislation, as that recognises that people with learning disabilities are people first, who have specific needs that arise from their disability. I also urge that those offences be deemed serious enough to have sentences that reflect such seriousness. The same offence against children has a maximum sentence of 10 years, which is what we should expect. In addition to not only providing more justice in such circumstances, that should also empower the police to do their job of providing greater protection to adults with learning disabilities.
	Violence, neglect and ill treatment of women and men with learning difficulties in their own homes are horrifyingly widespread. Perpetrators are not brought to justice, which is a scandal that we must do more to tackle. I want to pay tribute to the organisations that have been campaigning hard in this area, such as Voice UK, VIA—Values In Action—Respond, and Turning Point. I also congratulate the Government on the work that they did to bring in the Sexual Offences Act, and urge them to consider the suggested amendments for the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. The Government take seriously the issues of women, equality and human rights, and this legislation will move forward the rights of women and people with learning disabilities, giving them a stronger voice and strengthening their human rights.

Sandra Gidley: I welcome this debate, which now seems to be an annual fixture, which is a very good thing. In past years the debate has focused a little more on national issues, whereas the slightly different title of the debate this year prompted more thoughts on international issues. I will therefore cover some of those issues. My speech will be shorter than I intended because we now have a debate on Tuesday on women in the world, to which some of the material may be easily transferred. I therefore hope that more Members will be able to speak.
	We cannot ignore the United Kingdom completely, because, sadly, we have not yet got it completely right. I therefore make no apologies for starting with matters close to home. I want to acknowledge particularly the work of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which seems to be going from strength to strength. Hon. Members have already alluded to some of the work. I was going to talk at some length about the pay gap, but much of the material has been covered. Clearly, it is not right that the gap is still 18 per cent., although it is narrowing, as has been acknowledged. In relation to full-time work of a man and part-time work of a woman, however, the gap is still 40 per cent. I want to place it on the record that I appreciate that the Government can do only so much.
	Even more alarming, the pay gap on graduation is 15 per cent. That is exercising my mind considerably at the moment, as my daughter is due to graduate. I was interested by the comments of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) about the psychological and social pressures on women to choose certain types of work. When I consider my daughter and her peer group, it is apparent to me that the men are much more interested in career paths that value money and status, while the women tend to look for careers that will give them personal satisfaction. I do not know whether that is a throwback to the old-fashioned attitude that women can afford to adopt such careers because a man will keep them eventually. I sincerely hope not, and I think that such attitudes are probably a thing of the past. Nevertheless, there is evidently a bias towards a particular type of work in each group. Schools could do something about that. I am not suggesting that they should raise aspirations, for it is admirable to aspire to a job that contributes to society in some way, but it might be an idea to consider how we value certain roles.
	I am keen on the idea of pay audits. Not all my colleagues agree with me, so I am not exactly spouting a party line. I think it is quite healthy not to spout a party mantra all the time, as it happens. In my opinion, if there is more transparency in the way in which men and women are paid, women will vote with their feet. They will prefer to work for companies in which they see that women are valued equally and given equal bonuses, with no covert discrimination. Companies will eventually realise that if they cannot take their pick of the best women out there—who are often the best people out there—they will lose out.
	Much has been said about occupational segregation. The child care industry, for instance, is predominantly female. It is also very poorly paid, which, sadly, demonstrates the value that is attached to it. It seems perverse that we should pay so little for a service that involves our handing over something as precious to us as responsibility for our children. The fact that women on low pay want to be able to afford child care so that they can go on working does not mean that it too should be a low-paid profession.
	How can we encourage more women to take up science? I think things have improved over the years, although the figures may not suggest that. I remember getting into a strop as a 14-year-old schoolgirl because I could not study physics. I did not particularly want to study physics, but it was anathema to me to be told that I could not. I studied a range of other science subjects. Only when I took my books off to the library and refused to take part in geography or Latin lessons did the teachers decide to provide a physics teacher. That would not happen in a school today. We have made some progress in developing the curriculum.
	I made a stand about something else as well. I did not want to do cooking; I wanted to do woodwork. In fact, I did not especially want to do woodwork either, but I thought that we would have a session with the boys. The plan backfired, because all the boys were made to do cookery, and the impetus behind the little campaign that I had initiated as a 13-year-old—at a different school, I hasten to add—was lost. Nowadays the curriculum is designed much more evenly.

Betty Williams: We have made great strides with the help of WISE—Women into Science and Engineering. The school curriculum, among other things, has improved greatly over the last five years. We have people such as Marie-Noëlle Barker to thank for that.

Sandra Gidley: I was about to mention WISE. Before I became an MP, I had the pleasure of spending half days on a bus with girls from the local school whom I was encouraging to study science—although I myself became a politician, which seems perverse. Sadly, however, that brilliant initiative has not reached enough girls. That school would often select a higher stream of girls to go on to the bus, and I think schools should think about providing equal access.
	IBM launched another welcome initiative. It is in the Winchester constituency, just across the border from mine. It invited a number of young women aged 13 and 14 on to its premises for a week to engage in various science-based activities. The aim was to encourage them to work for a science-based company in the future—not necessarily as scientists, but in a science-based environment. They chose some girly ways of getting science messages across, but it was an excellent initiative and it would be helpful if the Government could encourage more companies to follow that example. All the girls I spoke to at the end of the week were very enthusiastic about the scheme. It opened their eyes to an area of work that they had previously thought was completely closed off to them.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I presume that the hon. Lady is aware of specialist school status, specifically schools that have been awarded technology status. That was done, more often than not, in conjunction with local industrialists who really want an industry-based or industry-supported education system because there is a desperate need for more young men and women to enter the professions of science, technology and engineering.

Sandra Gidley: I am aware of specialist colleges, but I was not aware that they had any particular success at recruiting females, so I shall examine the matter further. The hon. Lady certainly makes an interesting observation.
	I shudder to mention Parliament, but I have to acknowledge the fact that we now have more female MPs. Hand on heart, they are not mainly in my or the other Opposition party, which is a disappointment. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the greater presence of women has had a positive influence on policy so far. The number of women in the Cabinet was mentioned, but it is too easy to take one's eye off the ball. Recently, when the Chairs of Select Committees stood in front of the Prime Minister, I was struck by how few females were present; little attention seems to have been paid to that. I hope that the position will improve.
	A recent Equal Opportunities Commission campaign focused on discrimination against women in pregnancy. Last year, more than 1,000 women took legal action because they felt that they had been dismissed simply because of their pregnancies, but the Equal Opportunities Commission described it as the tip of the iceberg. That is probably a realistic comment on the position. Some women who are thinking of becoming pregnant restrict their career choices because they are worried about the real incidence of discrimination.
	I believe that the fines are nowhere near adequate. In a recent fairly high-profile case, a woman who worked for a law firm won, but the fine imposed on the company was a fraction of her annual salary—water off a duck's back for the company concerned. That makes it easy for companies to dismiss such women. The woman thought that she had a reasonable settlement until she discovered that, in the same week, a young girl who had worked for a firm for only two weeks had received a much greater financial pay-off because she had suffered some form of sexual harassment. It did not, however, involve touching—only talking and making observations about the young woman concerned. I do not want to diminish the seriousness of sexual harassment in any way, but it does seem odd that we place less weight on discrimination in pregnancy than on a relatively minor case of sexual harassment. The scales of justice do not seem equally balanced in respect of the fines.
	I welcome the plans to form a single equality body. There is considerable evidence to show that other inequalities such as race and disability are often exacerbated for women.
	I also want to mention domestic violence. That is not just a women's issue, but I make no apology for mentioning it today, because the reality is that far more victims are women. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill is welcome, but it does not address all the problems. One possible improvement to the proposals has already been mentioned.
	The thematic shadow report of the committee on the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women on violence against women in the UK may be a bit of a mouthful but it is interesting and timely. The authors state:
	"Given that a number of the issues highlighted in the report have been recognised for at least five years, there is an argument that the UK Government is consistently and knowingly failing to meet due diligence standards of human rights protection with respect to its female population."
	I shall highlight only some of the various concerns that the authors express. The report asserts that violence is not just a matter of gender, but that there appears to be little involvement by Departments responsible for constitutional affairs, health, housing and education. It also says that there is an inadequate understanding of links between violence against women and their economic, social and cultural rights.
	Most important, the report states that there is no strategic plan of action in England and Wales in respect of violence against women, although Scotland and Northern Ireland have done better. The result is an over-emphasis on domestic violence when it comes to policy, research and provision, but a failure to make connections between forms of violence, in terms of consequences and underlying causes. Very often, there is either a lack of knowledge in a particular area, or a duplication of effort. The Government must make an effort to join all the bits up.
	The report also found that there was minimal resourcing in the specialist non-governmental organisation sector, and a consistent lack of sanctions against violent and abusive men. I appreciate that the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill seeks to address some of those problems, but it is probably not enough.
	The emphasis on domestic violence means that other forms of violence and exploitation are in danger of being ignored. For example, the conviction rate for rape is very low, at about 5 per cent. It is also difficult to secure convictions in offences such as the sexual abuse, exploitation or trafficking of children, and the questions of prostitution and pornography are also thorny.
	The CEDAW report also deals with trafficking. Mention was made earlier of people's increased mobility. That exacerbates the trafficking problem. People can legitimately move around more easily, but there are many more opportunities for trafficking, and women's inequality and vulnerability mean that they are much more likely to be recruited to or entrapped in it. That again is linked to gender aspects of conflict and poverty, and life experiences such as childhood sexual abuse, domestic violence and poor status.
	In this area, the Government's attention has been poor. They funded a small exploratory study called "Stopping Traffic", but little progress has been made on its recommendations. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 was a missed opportunity. I was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, and many attempts were made to amend it. Proposals included providing a period of reflection for trafficked victims, with financial support and possibly even temporary residence. I point out to the House that the temporary residence proposal was supported by an EU directive, and that the 2003 Act does not comply with the definition of trafficking contained in the UN convention against transnational organised crime protocol.
	I visited Italy last year, where provision in respect of trafficking is streets ahead of ours. Trafficking is a bigger problem there, but a number of safe havens are provided for victims. They can stay at those places in safety for a while, and are not immediately deported back to their country of origin. That has resulted in a much higher conviction rate of traffickers. We in this country lag behind in that. Sweden, too, thinks it important to provide for this period of reflection. As a consequence it has a higher conviction rate of traffickers and is stamping down on the problem.
	There seems to be an unwritten, almost unsaid, feeling that people will automatically want to stay here and will use this as an excuse to press for staying. That has not necessarily been the experience of other countries. It is necessary to separate trafficking from immigration; they are two very different problems. If a very right-wing Government in Italy can manage that, it is not beyond the capabilities of this Government. When will the United Kingdom Government ratify the UN convention against transnational organised crime and the protocol on trafficking in women and children?
	Finally, I turn to post-conflict problems. The Minister mentioned Sierra Leone. I sincerely hope that work is done there. Examples from Afghanistan and Iraq do not augur well for the future. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). She was in her place earlier and I was hoping that she would speak. She has done much work to highlight the plight of Afghan women. In a recent magazine article she tellingly made the point that in the past Afghan women were educated and were not the helpless, burqa-clad figures portrayed by the media. She went on to say, and I hoped she might expand on this, that she feared that we were breaking our promises to Afghan women and that the continuing abuse of human rights of women was on a grand scale: widespread forced and under-age marriage of girls aged 10 to 16, a defence for honour killings still in place, and increased violence in the home. A new threat is the ever-present threat of rape or sexual assault by members of armed groups. The lack of physical security has had a huge impact and prevents women from participating in the political reconstruction process. I do not believe the picture is much better in Iraq. The Minister spoke of extremists, but I am not sure that extremism can be blamed for all the problems that are emerging and need to be dealt with. We have to face some of the attitudes of society head on. The telling point was made earlier that we have to make it clear that human rights and the wishes of a religion are not incompatible. There should be some way of accommodating both. That is difficult to achieve, but the most difficult things are often the most worth doing.
	Despite an agreement that women should make up 25 per cent. of the Iraqi national assembly—that is welcome and better than here—the 18-member committee that is drafting the constitution does not include a single woman. There is evidence that women who have tried to run for local office have been told by men at candidate registration offices that women cannot be candidates. On the streets of Iraq more women and girls—

Claire Curtis-Thomas: May I express my sorrow to the hon. Lady that in this important debate she stands alone, with none of her colleagues present? That is a sad reflection of the commitment of her party to this issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has made a number of interventions. We are fairly short of time in this debate and that was one of the least helpful.

Sandra Gidley: That was an appalling intervention, and untrue. I am discussing a very real problem facing women in post-conflict Iraq, yet the hon. Lady seeks to trivialise it in this way. She should be ashamed of herself.
	Many Iraqi women genuinely believed that they would gain more rights after the war. It is a huge disappointment to many of us that the opposite appears to be the case. Suspicions have arisen lately about the efforts of religious parties in the governing council to push through resolution 137, which would abolish a 1959 law that, according to the Justice Minister, Mr. al-Shibli, drew on the most generous protections for women and children from different schools of sharia. The resolution would stipulate that, for example, a Shi'ite woman should have her divorce adjudicated by Shi'ite law, while adjudication for a Sunni woman would be under Sunni law.
	In effect, one law would become many, according to religious adherence, but such a move would strip every woman of some of her current rights. For example, Shi'ite inheritance law is more generous to women than Sunni, but divorce protection is better under Sunni law. There are many similar examples. The Americans who run Iraq have frozen the legal system for now, but many supporters of the proposal have indicated that they want to reintroduce it when Iraq regains its sovereignty, as they believe that it respects religious diversity in Iraq. As women, we should pay particular attention to that situation.
	In Iraq, the same problems of gender-based violence are emerging as are occurring in Afghanistan. Many women have lost their job, especially in the public sector. In September 2003, it was announced that subsidies to farmers in Iraq—many of whom are women—would be reduced, which could drive many of them out of business. An Iraqi madam, quoted in The Daily Telegraph on 26 October 2003, said:
	"Most of my girls are from the countryside. They are not well educated, so the money is good for them."
	It is not difficult to work out that if farming collapses, owing to the withdrawal of subsidies, there will be thousands—possibly tens of thousands—of young women crowding into cities and thus vulnerable to recruitment to brothels. None of us would support that consequence of the war but it will be a reality if alternative employment is not made available for those women, so any support for Iraqi farming communities will be helpful.
	The Minister may not be able to respond to all the points that I have made, but I hope that she will discuss them with the Secretary of State for International Development. I hope that he is paying more attention to UN resolution 1325 than his predecessor, who could not even remember what it was about when asked during DFID questions. I have yet to see a focus on that resolution, which would include women in post-conflict resolution and peace-building. Much evidence shows that when women distribute resources, they ensure that those resources go to the most needy—women and children—but if resources are distributed by men, there is a greater likelihood of the chain being corrupted in some way. That is not new information; most non-governmental organisations working in the field acknowledge it, although women do not appear very much in that aspect of post-conflict work.
	This subject is so wide-ranging that it is difficult to choose a focus. I look forward to the other contributions to the debate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I suggest that a guide time of about 10 minutes might enable all those Members who seek to catch my eye to do so?

Julie Morgan: I am pleased that women have the opportunity to hold this annual debate, and it is a pleasure to be called to speak.
	International women's day is a good time to assess where we are as women, especially as this year we are mid-way through the second term of the Labour Government. It is important to establish how women have fared under Labour and where we go from here—a point already addressed in some of the speeches made from the Front Benches.
	I want to start by discussing women in Wales. In Wales, the first resounding success for women that springs to mind is the almost incredible achievement of a 50:50 gender balance in the Welsh Assembly. Who would have believed that that would happen in Wales, a country where iron and steel industries predominated, where mainly male-dominated unions held power and where politics was, as likely as not, sorted out between men in the pub? All that has changed.
	In other political spheres—local authorities and this place—all parties have failed to ensure that women have a completely equal say. Labour has done better than the other parties in Westminster with our 94 women MPs. The Welsh Assembly is the only law-making body in the world where half the Members are women, and the credit for that must be given to the Labour party. Its determination to battle with the thorny issues of all-women shortlists and twinning for the Welsh Assembly constituencies has resulted in 18 Labour women Members in the Welsh Assembly, compared with 12 Labour men. All the other parties have women Members, including, for the first time since the last election, the Conservative party, but it is a fact that nearly two thirds of the women Assembly Members are Labour. I did not realise that the split was 50:50 until the Fawcett Society rang up on the day after polling day in May 2003 to point out that unique achievement.
	Over the past couple of years, I have had the privilege of talking to women in many other countries, including the United States, Iran, Ethiopia and, more recently, India. They expressed astonishment at that achievement and asked how we managed to do it. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equality discussed equality and human rights all over the world, because one of the great privileges of being a Member of Parliament is meeting women internationally.
	Many hon. Members will remember the moving stories told in last year's women's day debate. When we meet women in other countries and discuss issues such as equality and human rights, we usually find that we are trying to tackle the same problems. Women's representation is raised as a major issue all over the world. One must implement a mechanism to ensure that women have a say, and the women to whom I have spoken in countries all over the world seem to draw that conclusion.
	I recently visited India with a group of women Members, some of whom are in the House today, on the first all-women MPs visit to India. Everywhere we went, women at all levels discussed the 33 per cent. representation of women in Parliament that all political parties in India seem to support, but which has never actually appeared on the statute book, and I want to put down a marker in the House that we support them in that aspiration. It will be interesting to see whether in the current elections any party commits itself in its manifesto to one third of representatives being women. The law applies at local authority level, and 33 per cent. of local authority councillors in India are women, which is a tremendous achievement—in Wales, only 21 per cent. of councillors are women.
	Wherever we went in India, we were struck by the strength and enthusiasm of women. We visited a project funded by the Department for International Development, where money had been invested to pave the streets and put in taps and toilets. Women in the community had formed the committees, made the decisions and worked hard to make sure that the project really answered people's needs. We were overwhelmed by the enthusiasm that those women showed.
	There is no doubt that having so many women in visible, high profile positions in the Welsh Assembly Government has changed politics in Wales. As other hon. Members have said, women do politics differently. It was easier to do that in Wales because we were starting up a new institution, and the same was true in Scotland. It is much more difficult to change an established institution such as Westminster, but we can change things here as well following the enactment of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002.
	On this first international women's day since the Welsh Assembly elections, the Labour party and the Government should take enormous pride in what we have achieved in Wales and in this place, but things are far from perfect in Wales. We have no black or ethnic minority female—or male—members of the Assembly and statistics are bleak for other areas of life in Wales. For example, only 16 per cent. of secondary school head teachers are women; only 27 per cent. of senior civil servants are women; only 18 per cent. of local authority chief executives are women; and only 20 per cent of hospital consultants are women. We are not complacent: although we have achieved much in terms of elected representation, we have a long way to go in many other areas.
	I shall now consider briefly—as many of the issues have already been mentioned today—what the Labour Government have achieved for women since 1997. Labour has improved conditions for women who work outside the home and the lives of women at home. More women are in employment than ever before, and the minimum wage has had a huge impact in Wales, bringing thousands of women out of poverty pay. Maternity pay has increased and the child care tax credit and child tax credit have been introduced. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has allocated millions of pounds to child care. Women have more rights in the workplace and are better able to balance work and life.
	I heard only yesterday from the Public and Commercial Services Union about the Inland Revenue in Llanishen in my constituency, which no longer has a core time for working. That means that women and men can clock in and out of work three or four times a day and go home as needed to care for children or—more likely—for elderly people, or to have the washing machine mended. That is a huge change that the Inland Revenue is operating in Cardiff and probably throughout the UK, and it especially important for women, who always have to juggle responsibilities at home and work.
	It is now politically acceptable to speak up for women in this Chamber in a way that it may not have been some years ago. Every month we can table questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equality, and she is one of five women in the Cabinet. We still have no day nursery at Westminster, and that is a disgrace, given the thousands of women employed here. I hope that we will be able to do something about that. At least the House of Commons now sits at more family friendly hours. For me, they are not family friendly because my family is in Wales, but at least the hours are more normal and the working day sets a better example. It may encourage other women to stand as Members of Parliament, because it is now more like a normal job. It is very important that we try to make this place more modern, so that it appeals to women and makes them want to come here and join us in trying to change things.
	In the home, the scourge of domestic violence has finally been recognised and we have had some discussion of the issue today. This year, the Labour Government introduced the first legislation in 30 years on the issue. It is a worldwide problem. Last year I visited Ethiopia as part of the British Council's pairing scheme for African and Westminster women representatives. When I was there, I was asked to give a lecture on how we deal with domestic violence. I gave the horrific statistics, and at the end the first questioner could not believe that we still had to deal with the problem as such an affluent country. They could not believe that domestic violence was still an issue. However, we all know that domestic violence occurs in all societies, at all levels.
	I shall not take much longer, as I know that other women wish to speak, but I wonder why—despite the undoubted major advances for women—things still seem precarious and hard for many women in this country. Those who have spoken, from both sides of the House, have indicated some of the difficulties. As Anna Coote said, in the second Val Feld memorial lecture in Swansea last year:
	"As a woman, you can feel politically, socially and economically marginal."
	I often feel that, as I am sure many of us do. In many ways, women are still on the edges of political life and discussion. All the leaders of all the parties in the UK are men. The international discussions that dominate the news are usually between men. We hope that women will get a toe in through the new constitutions in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the guarantee of 25 per cent. representation will be very fragile—although it is better than we have here.
	The pay gap has already been discussed, and the Fawcett Society has given us ammunition to campaign even more strongly for equal pay. Women pensioners often live in poverty—statistics showing that have been cited today.
	Despite the progress that women have made and the fact that the Government have led the way on making things better for women in this country—the situation has been transformed since 1997—there is an enormous amount left to do. That is not a reason to get depressed, feel down or feel we have not got enough. It is time to do all the things that women are often accused of doing in any case. We are accused of being awkward, of being interested in only one thing, of being a pain in the neck or of being hell raisers—such expressions are often used to describe women. I quote again Anna Coote from the lecture in honour of Val Feld, the wonderful feminist from Wales. She said that it is perhaps time not to take
	"'no' or 'maybe' or 'later' for an answer."
	I am sure that all women present, supported by the men, will use their places in the House of Commons as creatively and assertively as possible to make things better for women. I hope that we will continue to build on the progress that we have made, and continue our journey to put women in the centre of politics in the UK. Our aim is not to become like the men or to do politics like the men, but to work in the unique way in which women do—getting on with the job.

Angela Watkinson: May I associate myself with the remarks of the Minister for Women about the barbaric practice of genital mutilation, which I am sure everyone in the House would deplore? I served on the Committee that considered the Female Genital Mutilation Bill, and although it had only one sitting I had the opportunity to meet some of the women who came to listen to our deliberations. I heard personal accounts that were quite horrifying.
	I want to ask a fundamental question: what does equality really mean? Can it, or does it, mean equal rights with men, and, if so, in what way? It can mean equal treatment in law and education. It can mean equal access to employment, but equal access to all employment opportunities for all women—or, in some cases, any opportunities at all—is probably unattainable for a variety of reasons. Being equal in the eyes of the law will never make women the same as men because of the simple biological reasons of pregnancy and childbirth, and that is never going to change.
	For women with children, family responsibilities are probably the main reason, but not the only reason, for occupational segregation and the gender pay gap. Women with children are far more likely than others to work locally, where rates of pay are lower, so that they can avoid lengthening their working day by having to travel to work. They are far more likely to have to limit their availability for work to fit in with their children's nursery or school hours, thus limiting further their earning potential.
	Of course, some jobs simply do not appeal to women, especially those that require the physical strength and stamina commonly associated with men. There is nothing wrong with that. It is why the fire service, for example, is unlikely ever to increase significantly the number of women whom it employs as firefighters, despite having an open recruitment policy. Women simply do not apply in large numbers, but it is the policy that is important because it makes that area of employment available to women if they choose it and, importantly, if they are able to carry out the job; whether they choose to apply is less important.
	Employment legislation has made enormous strides since the Equal Pay Act 1970 almost half a century ago. Before that Act, women were paid at a lower rate for doing exactly the same work as their male colleagues—I know because I was one of them. I was dismayed to discover how extensive that practice still is from comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House; I had hoped that it was largely a thing of the past.
	In many organisations, women employees were treated as only temporary staff because it was assumed that in due course they would marry and leave. Men with working wives were often derided by their colleagues as not being able to support their wives. Women were regarded as dependent per se. Those who did not marry were regaled with the delightful title of spinster. Even those who remained in post until they retired were still considered to be temporary staff. There was no personnel mechanism to ensure that they received equal treatment with their male colleagues, who were on the permanent payroll.
	Maternity leave and pay now make it possible for women to return to their employment if they want or need to do so. It is fair to comment on behalf of employers that whereas large organisations are able to cope with the complications of staff cover for maternity leave, it can cause real difficulties for small firms that employ only a few people. For that reason, women's prospects may be affected in those organisations.
	The only career advice that I ever received at the co-educational grammar school that I attended would be unthinkable today. It would probably be illegal. All the girls were assembled in the hall and told by the headmistress that there were only two respectable occupations for women—teaching and nursing. It was teachers on one side and nurses on the other. The subject was never mentioned again. I think that girls who chose neither occupation were deemed to be lost causes.
	Nowadays, no doors are closed to any pupil and career choices are driven by interests and abilities. I have been surprised by some of the comments of hon. Members on both sides of the House this afternoon that some girls have limited aspirations. That is not my experience. I am a governor of two secondary schools; one is a girls' school and one is a mixed comprehensive. My experience from those two schools is that career advice is the same and that there are no restrictions. Girls' horizons are not limited and they are expected to reach for the sky and attain whatever they wish to in their coming careers. Given that approach, I hope that the traditional occupational segregation and gender pay gap will become a thing of the past quite naturally within a very few years.
	It is important that the status of motherhood is not eroded in the drive to provide equal employment opportunities for women. The choice of staying at home to bring up children is not open to many women for financial reasons. However, those who exercise that choice are doing an important and demanding job that is of huge benefit to their children. I acknowledge and pay tribute to them.
	Women who bring up their children single-handed have a particularly difficult role. They often face financial pressure in addition to all the practical difficulties with which they have to cope. Single motherhood arises for a range of different reasons. The rate of unplanned teenage pregnancies is alarmingly high and should be a cause of great concern to us all.
	Sex education in schools has a crucial role to play. Since 1947, there has been more and more sex education for younger and younger children. Yet, at the same time, the rates of pregnancy, abortion and disease have grown. I wonder whether a complete rethink of the style of sex education, especially for girls, would be advisable. This is one area where clearly girls and boys are not equal. That is because the outcomes are so different. Girls must be warned about the likely outcome of engaging in sexual activity with boys who have no desire to become a parent, no desire to get married and have no income with which to support a child.
	Life alone in a council flat for a single mother, with sole responsibility for a baby, while her friends are out either completing their education or simply enjoying themselves, is neither glamorous nor exciting. This is a real-life situation where equality flies out of the window. The woman takes full responsibility for the action of both people.
	I do not know whether hon. Members have been receiving a lot of questionnaires lately from women students. I have received about five in the past fortnight from women who are taking political courses. It worries me that none of my male colleagues seems to have received any. It is clear that women Members are being targeted. It worries me also that positive discrimination, which to me is unnecessary and patronising, seems to be implicit in the style of so many of the questions. There is an assumption that gender prejudice exists, which I for one have never experienced. I always respond by stating that I did not become a woman MP. I became an MP and just happened to be a woman. We cannot demand equality on the one hand and expect special or different treatment on the other.
	Last year, there was a demand to allow breastfeeding in the Chamber, which was based more on political correctness than on common sense. It probably had a negative effect on the way in which we are perceived by the world outside Westminster and was unhelpful. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) spoke about the proportion of women in the Welsh Assembly, and I pay tribute to Stockholm city council—I visit Stockholm regularly—which has 50 women members. When I asked what it did to achieve that figure, the answer, encouragingly, was nothing at all, which tells us something about the community and the status of women in Sweden.
	The historical reasons for the concentration of women in low-paid jobs are gradually being overcome by equal access to education and careers guidance. Equality of income will in due course overcome the problem of inadequate pensions for women, but nothing will ever change the fact that women produce children and men do not. Women will continue to have to make choices, and balance family and work commitments, which will be made easier by employment legislation. I was disappointed by some of the comments this afternoon about quotas and percentages, which suggest that women are a race apart or are different. I do not think that we do things differently, and there are few cases in which one can say, "All women do this". If we are to have true equality, we must treat everyone as an individual rather than as a member of a group, however large, which means that gender will become irrelevant.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I shall confine my remarks to the role of women in science, engineering and technology.
	Colleagues may know that I am a chartered engineer, and that I started my engineering career as an apprentice for a machine tool company in Portsmouth. I was a race apart, as there were no other women. It is rewarding to work in engineering, and it is a fantastic career. It is enormously creative and diverse—there is something for everyone, regardless of their intellectual ability. I enjoyed the practical aspects of my work, but I did not enjoy my employment conditions. The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970, but its effects were not apparent in my workplace. I was subject to sexual harassment every day of my apprenticeship, which I was desperate to finish as it gave me a passport to employment and, more importantly, money. Many women in the workplace, even today, will put up with a great deal because they need money. I was told in no uncertain terms that if I made a complaint my apprenticeship deeds would be torn up. There was no requirement for an employer to justify his actions towards an apprentice so, for four years, I endured workplace harassment, but finally I collected my deeds. Mercifully, the situation has changed, and that change was brought about by this Government, who have taken important steps to protect individuals in the workplace, whatever their status.
	Having left the dockyard, I was desperate to remain on the docks and become a foreman. I fancied managing a lot of men—there were still no women—but I was told that advancement was almost impossible because it was a question of dead men's shoes. I was also told, in no uncertain terms, that every man in the docks would have to die before I got the job. Faced with such a daunting prospect, even I had to give up and go to university, which I was told was far more liberal. It was not. I had not been there a day to do my mechanical engineering degree when a lecturer took me aside and asked, "Why is a married woman like you not at home looking after her husband?" So there was no change there.
	At university, I was one of the only 5 per cent. of women doing an engineering degree in 1980. I met remarkable women in the science faculties. I want to spend some time talking about the remarkable women in this country who have given the greatest part of their lives to trying to get more women into science, engineering and technology. I certainly would not be the woman I am today without their mentoring support and huge enthusiasm for our world.
	Twenty years ago I was introduced to Women into Science and Engineering, which has been mentioned today. WISE is celebrating its 20th year this year. I am proud to say that I was part of the team that launched it in Wales. That team was led by a remarkable scientist, Professor Gillian Powell. Gillian was a small, dark-haired woman. I have been afraid of such women ever since, because she possessed great power and great enthusiasm to get the job done. But that came at a cost—she attained her position only by never marrying and never having a family. She never left the workplace and she died of a work-related illnesses. She worked in biochemistry, with very aggressive, hazardous products, and those products killed her.
	Before she died, Gillian launched WISE, and together we did a great deal in Wales on the buses, out there, going to schools, trying to get young girls involved. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) is quite right: in the early days it was about very clever girls. Subsequently, we tried to draw in the mass of young women who are today turning to plumbing courses, plastering courses and all those other skilled work courses where we have a huge, desperate shortage of recruits.
	WISE was a great innovation, and it is still going. If hon. Members have not met the WISE team, headed by a magnificent French woman, Marie Noelle-Barton, I ask them to do so now and join in and support its activities, because it needs our help.

Julie Morgan: Is my hon. Friend aware that a memorial lecture was given for Professor Gillian Shephard in the south Glamorgan county council, where I was a member, and that her name lived on for many years in the title of that lecture?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to Gillian Powell.

Julie Morgan: My apologies.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Gillian Shephard is a remarkable woman, but I did not think she doubled as a professor of biochemistry in Cardiff, let alone that she was dead. I am delighted to hear about the lecture.
	I am not at all surprised, given the generosity of my colleagues in Wales and their ability to recognise the values that women bring to the workplace.
	WISE has been supported by another very important organisation, the Women in Engineering Society. What a fantastic group of women that is. It is 78 years old now—not the women, of course, though many members are of that sort of age. The organisation has been there for 78 years to support women and, crucially, to provide mentoring in the workplace.We have talked today about the fact that many women involved in science, engineering and technology careers find it difficult to stay in the workplace when they become parents. In conjunction with employers, WES has launched a scheme that brings those women—many of them with not one, two, but three degrees—back into the workplace after a period of leave that may sometimes be 10 or 15 years. Those women have extraordinary ability, and we lose a huge amount when they are lost indefinitely to the workplace. I commend WES and the excellent work that it has done.
	The Government have done a great deal, as I know because I use the services that they provide. They support an organisation called SEAs—Science and Engineering Ambassadors, a group of 1,000 or more people around the country who are prepared to give up their time and go into schools to help with school projects. I hope hon. Members who do not know about SEAs will find out about them. Those people are waiting, enthusiastic and eager to help promote science, engineering and technology.
	Another organisation, Set-up, was founded by two women in Cheshire, working hand in hand with SEAs. It was founded by Shirley King and Dr. Violet Pritchard. Dr. Pritchard was one of the first women in Britain to study medicine. Fifty years ago, women who were good at science subjects did not have the option of studying medicine. They could study veterinary science as that did not involve bodies—it was not considered appropriate for women to mess with bodies. Vi was delighted that she was one of the first women in the country to undertake a medical degree. Shirley was one of the first women to head a technical college in Britain. Both of them founded Set-up well after their retirement in order to address an issue about which they felt passionately—the lack of women in science, engineering and technology.
	Careers in science, engineering and technology are remarkably creative, as I said, and extremely important in economic terms. Careers in science, engineering and technology pay more. For women who may find themselves on their own looking after a family, that is immensely important. We have failed to realise the potential of half the people living in this country. Until we do so, we will not reap the economic benefit to which we have a right.
	Much has been said about the role of legislation. What the Labour Government have done has been enormously important. I have worked for many, many employers who resisted any change to employment practice in order to retain people like me. I have left employers because they would not adapt their leave policy to accommodate my caring requirements. I have left employers who would not allow me a flexible working day. In this place and outside, I have never worked less than 60 hours a week, but I would like to have worked those 60 hours when it suited my family requirements.
	We have not lost anything by introducing legislation. We have freed up more people to go into the workplace. Not one of my employers was prepared to make that concession, not because they did not recognise the value of it, but because if they did and their competitors did not, they might lose competitive advantage. Although we may appeal to them and say, "Look, chaps, this makes huge sense. It's good for you and will help you with your recruitment and retention policy", ultimately they will refuse if it will cause a marketplace differential and add initially to their cost structure.
	Legislation has been important in promoting women into work and retaining them in work. However, legislation alone will not tackle the problem of discrimination at its source. How do we encourage young girls from poorer backgrounds to aspire to go to university and undertake professional lives thereafter? We can do that only by providing good pre-school and primary education. If I had to name one step that the Government have taken since 1997 that has done more for women than anything else, it must be the Sure Start programme in deprived areas. It is a fantastic programme. If we do not get education right at pre-school level, what chance will those children ever have of going to university?
	In this important debate on this special day, I stand here proud of the achievements that the Government have delivered in a relatively short period. I lived and worked in a world where that legislation did not exist, and it was extremely hard for women who wanted to participate and work in the environment of science, engineering and technology to do so. I commend to hon. Members the work of all the partnering organisations that are helping us to deliver a better future for women in the United Kingdom.

Angela Browning: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas).
	I intend to focus on older women—that is, those who have reached their 50s, pensionable age and beyond. There are still huge gaps in the system for that group, and the Government, among others, must be flexible in addressing their needs and concerns.
	I want to flag up two lessons from the past. The first will be familiar to many Members who have dealt with relevant constituency casework: it involves the generation of women who, back in the 1970s, opted to pay the lower rate of national insurance. In the past couple of years, many of them have reached state retirement age, only to discover that they do not have the amount of pension that they anticipated because they elected to take that option. One of the most frustrating aspects of such cases is that when one tries on their behalf to find proof that they did so, it is difficult to find any tangible evidence. One is told by the responsible body—it used to be the Contributions Agency, then it was the Benefits Agency, and now it is the Department for Work and Pensions—that the information is on its records but there is no paper evidence. That shows us that whenever the state, whoever is in government, asks people to make such a choice, there should be a requirement to take a signature and to keep it on the record.

Angela Watkinson: I speak from personal experience, because I was one of those women. I remember having the situation explained to me in great detail, going to the social security office, or whatever it was called at the time, and signing.

Angela Browning: My hon. Friend must be the exception to the rule. In the constituency cases that I have taken up, people are very confused because they cannot quite recall what they did. They may have done the same as my hon. Friend or followed advice that they received in a workplace. When we are dealing with something as important as a person's future income in retirement, there must be a requirement to ensure that their decision is recorded so that if, for example, their Member of Parliament asks for evidence of it, they can at least fax us a signature. We simply have to take their word that that is what they elected to do 20 or 25 years ago.
	We need to take much more seriously the whole issue of women's finance, especially pensions. Nowadays, much is done in schools to encourage young people better to understand their personal finances, budgeting, and the workings of the tax and benefits system. However, there is much more to do. It is horrifying that even people whom one would expect to have a good grasp of what they were doing sign up in later life to products such as equity release mortgages—a subject that I have raised in Adjournment debates—only to find that they have signed away their future financial security without realising it.
	Cases of women who rely on their husbands' national insurance contributions for their state pension also need to be tackled. Although it is not a generational matter, it is becoming more so. I recently raised with the Minister a case of a constituent who received a pension based on her husband's contributions. However, when her husband retired, the then Benefits Agency wrote to him and not to her. It was not until he died that she had to start making inquiries about her entitlement. Even if her entitlement was due to his contribution, it is rather old-fashioned to regard her in the same way as in the days of goods and chattels. Nobody thought that it would be correct to write to her about her position. That is wrong because we all know of cases of bereavement in which women are suddenly faced with having to sort out their finances, in addition to grief and distress. That is even harder if they are genuinely not aware of their entitlements, based on their husbands' contributions.
	We could easily make helpful adjustments for the future based on those two lessons from the past. However, women's working lives and patterns are different from those of men. The pay gap is closing, although we are not there yet, and there is more equality year after year. None the less, a gap continues to exist and it translates in old age and retirement into one in four pensioners, of whom women form the largest portion, living at the poverty level. We need to take some practical measures to deal with that.
	I am appalled that a woman who has paid national insurance contributions for fewer than 10 years is not entitled to the state pension. If one took out a private pension and contributed for only seven or eight years, it would be illegal for the pension provider not to recognise that and pay out, albeit a smaller portion, when the person reached pensionable age. It is wrong that the state adopts a different set of rules. The problem has existed for many years, so it does not apply only to the current Government. A contribution that is small because of so few years' input is likely to be even more important to the person in retirement. It is therefore fair and just that there should be some sort of pay-out to someone who has paid in, regardless of the number of years.
	We should also consider the lower earnings limit of £77 a week. We have all received representations on that because of the Pensions Bill. For those who earn low amounts of money for a large portion of their lives—for some people, that means all their working lives—it is even more critical that we use as much flexibility as possible and acknowledge that, when possible, they must be allowed to make some pension input. A woman's working life plan cannot always be defined.
	Although I appreciate that my next point, about carers, does not apply exclusively to women and that men, too, play a caring role, older women often take on the caring role for an increasingly older generation of parents and relatives. There is a great difference between caring for older people and looking after children. I speak as someone who has worked since the age of 18 without a gap—when my children were pre-school, I worked only part-time—and I am now 57. There are times when one earns more and others when one can give more time, but although child care is hard and demanding, it is at least possible to plan in some ways. When children are 10, their needs are different from when they are pre-school, and when they reach the shrugging-shoulders age of 16, they do not want anyone to look after them. At least a parent can plan.
	However, people who, in middle age, take on the care of older relatives do not know how long that will last. Those women do not know whether that will take them beyond the state retirement age, so the planning of that care and of their finances is so much more complex and difficult. I was listening to "Woman's Hour" as I was driving in this morning, and a range of women phoned in with contributions. The subject was the many women who, for all sorts of reasons—including many reasons mentioned in today's debate, and including the caring role that some women have taken on in later life—have found themselves having to enter paid employment beyond the state retirement age.
	Like many people, I imagine that when I retire from this place—which I hope will not be for a few years yet—I will undertake some other form of paid employment. I hope that that will not be for the 60 or 80-hour week that we work here, but I should be quite happy to go and work for Tesco—or whoever will take the golden oldies then. I want to do that because I want to keep active, and we all have similar personal reasons or plans. However, I would find it quite stressful if I thought that I really had to work well into old age—perhaps into my 70s or even longer—for long hours, and not knowing for how long I would have to continue in work. Many people are now doing that. As was reflected in the "Woman's Hour" contributions today, there is a vast difference between people who take a job in retirement to keep their hand in, to keep their brain active and to give them social contact, and people who, because of lack of pension provision, have to work for more hours than are tolerable given their age and perhaps their state of health.
	We need flexibility if we are going to take pre-emptive action to try to help that group of people. I realise that it includes men as well as women, but we are predominantly looking at a population of women with many of those problems in retirement, because women live that much longer. The Pensions Bill is currently going through the House, and I know that the Government have been lobbied on it by the Equal Opportunities Commission, Age Concern, the Fawcett Society and a range of other groups, which have practical recommendations on how to introduce more flexibility, particularly for lower earners and for women with huge gaps in their working lives. I hope that as the Bill goes through and more details are discussed, the Government will be receptive to arguments about those groups of people.
	We know from the statistics that have been mentioned this afternoon that women live longer than men. I have to say that I have never been able to understand that. We women work so hard that I cannot imagine why we should live longer than men, but somehow, for some reason, we grit our teeth and do. I see that the hon. Gentlemen around the Chamber are grinning in agreement. In practice, that means that more women face old age for more years alone, and those women need to have more money because they have to provide for themselves for longer, often when they are frail and less able to do so much for themselves.
	I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that such women need particular attention. This is not simply a generational problem that will go away. We cannot just assume that because women have depended on their husbands' pensions in the past, that will happen again. We are now seeing a generation of women in middle and older age who are increasingly having to take on a caring role at the end of their lives. Very often, such women find that as soon as the kids are off their hands, the golden oldies start to need them, and sometimes there is not even a gap in between. It is quite worrying to think that the ability of those women to plan their finances, and to plan for their financial security, is much less favourable than that of many men.

Ann Cryer: Just five years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and I approached the then Home Secretary to ask him whether he would have a problem if we had a debate on forced marriages in our Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities. He answered that he would not have a problem with that, but that we would—and he spoke a very true word. However, we had that Adjournment debate, which was excellent, and the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) led for her party. That was the first time that the question of forced marriages in our Asian communities had been raised in this House. From then on, I have been working assiduously with various Government Departments and, more particularly, with my young Asian women. I say "Asian", but I mean Pakistani and Bangladeshi; the Indian community does not seem to get too involved in this sort of thing.
	I was extremely impressed by the response to the Adjournment debate by the then Minister of State at the Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). I had expected a very bland assurance that the Department would do what it could, but that the matter was very sensitive. I did not think that we would get anything. However, it was not like that at all. The Minister made promises about doing all sorts of things, and very shortly afterwards, during that summer, a working group was set up under the joint chairmanship of Baroness Pola Uddin of Bethnal Green and Lord Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham. The working group went all round the country, and it came up to Bradford and talked to women who had been subjected to forced marriages. As a result, it came up with various action plans, and the Government came forward with various initiatives.
	I am proud to say that one of the initiatives that was handed down to West Yorkshire police was designed to help women in these tragic circumstances. Inspector Martin Baines was the chief man; he led the way. A certain Phillip Balmforth, who is a knight in shining armour, is the man who goes in when a woman is under threat and gets her out of that very frightening situation. It is sometimes a frightening situation for him as well.
	The Foreign and Commonwealth Office eventually set up the community liaison unit, which now has a helpline headed by a couple of very good women. They are very well informed on these issues, and are helping the Government to formulate policy all the time. I should like, therefore, to pay tribute to Heather Harvey and Fozia Hussein, who have also been very helpful to me.
	The Home Office has subsequently introduced the domestic violence concession. Hon. Members on the Labour Benches will know precisely what I am talking about here; I am not sure about those on the Opposition Benches. The concession means that a woman who has been thrown out of her home or physically abused by her husband or her in-laws before she has been granted indefinite leave to remain can apply to get that leave to remain. She is then able to get money and go into a refuge, although that is not a perfect solution. I have had six successes using the domestic violence concession. Those of us who deal with these situations have to be a bit careful because we do not want the concession to be abused in any way. I have had one or two cases in which women have tried to abuse it, by telling me less than the truth. However, I got to the bottom of those cases and refused to use the concession.
	Despite the fact that the Government have done all that they can to prevent this dreadful abuse of the human rights of these young women, the abuse continues in all sorts of ways. At the moment, I am dealing with at least one case of forced marriage each week. We have achieved a measure of success, however, as have my colleagues in Bradford, but the problem still exists in most northern towns and cities. We are working hard to tackle it, but at the end of the day, it is up to the communities themselves to stop these practices, either through the mosques or through the secular groups in the community centres. They ought to be working hard to persuade parents that this is not the way to behave towards their daughters—it is nearly always daughters who are at the sharp end of a forced marriage.
	I have already made one or two suggestions to the Ministers involved, but I think that I have time to go through them briefly again here. They are proposals that might allow the Government to help matters, although, as I have said, it must ultimately be the communities that advise parents against acting in such an un-Islamic way as to force their daughters to marry.
	We could increase the lower age limit of 18 to 21, for the purpose of acting as a sponsor for a spouse from outside the EU, and introduce a lower age limit of 21—no age limit exists at present—for applicants for entry clearance for permanent settlement as spouse. In both cases, were we able to delay until 21 the age at which women were being forced to marry and act as a sponsor, they would have a much better chance of taking on their parents, arguing against them and succeeding in getting their own way and having some say in their choice of spouse. Many of them would be happy to go along not with a forced marriage but with an arranged marriage—they simply want to do it in their own time, possibly when they have done A-levels or even a university degree.
	If I had a choice, I would introduce a requirement for citizenship for anyone wishing to act as a sponsor for a spouse from outside the EU. The reason for that is that I, and other Members representing northern cities and towns, are encountering an increasing number of problems whereby a young woman has gone along with her family, has done her best, and has brought in her husband; and her husband says, two years down the line, at the end of the probationary period, "Thanks for that, I'm going. I didn't really want to marry you in the first place, I just wanted my indefinite leave to remain." The day he gets his indefinite leave to remain, he is off.
	I have many angry young women in my constituency who hate this situation. They feel that they have been used, and their parents are also angry. If citizenship were required before people could act as a sponsor, those young men—it is nearly always young men—would have to be here for five years before they were able to act as a sponsor for another wife to come in. Consequently, they would be a little more circumspect about kidding a girl that they really wanted to marry her, and after two years leaving her and bringing in another woman from Pakistan or Bangladesh.
	If I had my way, I would also introduce a new criminal offence related specifically to aiding and abetting and/or coercing someone into a forced marriage. We have existing remedies in criminal law in relation to forcing a person to marry, such as bringing charges of abduction, false imprisonment, assault or rape. That does not seem to be working terribly well, however, and forced marriages are continuing apace. Sadly, we are getting not a high number but perhaps eight to 10 cases a year of honour killings, which are nearly always associated with a forced marriage. Were we to introduce a criminal offence of aiding and abetting a forced marriage, it might alert parents to the fact that they are committing a criminal offence—they are doing so already, but because it is not written out in those terms, they do not seem to recognise it. By doing so, we would be slapping them across the face with it or spraying it on their eyeballs—whichever expression one wants to use. It would really help if we were to go along that path.
	I have been asked to keep my speech to 10 minutes, so I shall wind up quickly. The silver lining is that many of the young women in my constituency are now going on to do A-levels and go to university. Mums and dads do not like them to go far away, so they are doing degrees at Huddersfield, Leeds or Bradford, but that really is a step in the right direction. An increasing number are doing that every year, but unfortunately, there are still the backwoodspeople who are forcing their daughters to do other than they would wish.
	I shall tell the House one story—I do not want to speak much longer. I met the other day a young lady whom I had helped to resist all her family's pressures to bring in a husband whom she never wanted to marry in the first place. We managed to get his visa stopped. She came to tell me that the visa had been stopped, and that her mum and dad had said to her, "You're behind this, aren't you?" She said, "Yes, so what?" That was wonderful, and a real step in the right direction. I have never had a young Asian woman tell me before that she had faced her parents and told them that she was behind such a refusal.

Dari Taylor: I take great pleasure in celebrating women's lives, and that definitely applies to today's debate. I also take great pleasure in the fact that my party has done so much in government to challenge all the factors that hinder the achievement of equality. I shall not mention them, as I have not the time, but my sisters on the Labour Benches have done so quite adequately.
	There is still a strong cultural assumption that family responsibilities should continue to fall on women. That is exacerbated by employers' resistance to the idea of measures that would persuade women, and men, to accept their family responsibilities but also to use their talents in employment. One such measure is the introduction of flexible hours. Last year the 100 best companies outlined their employment policies. I think when they do so again this year their policies will include flexibility, engaging with family responsibilities, and giving women as well as men an opportunity to use their talents. I wish that other employers would follow their lead.
	The cultural assumptions that still persist, although they are weakening, tend to turn on the almost universal expectation that women will undertake most unpaid child care, and the belief that men's work is more important than women's. Such assumptions may stem from poverty of aspiration, or indeed from financial poverty. Women may be desperate to keep their families going on whatever is available.
	We do, however, see the weakening of those assumptions. Mothers now work in 55 per cent. of families with children under the age of five. Shift patterns are beginning to develop in family life: family and work responsibilities are being combined. In dual-earner families, fathers undertake a third of parental care, and increasingly they are becoming the "second main carers" for their children: they tend not to opt for professional care. That shows that men and women want to do things together in the family, and to share both family responsibilities and work opportunities.
	I am delighted that the Secretary of State has returned to the Chamber. I suggest to her that flexible working patterns should be at the core of the next tranche of reforms relating to women and the achievement of equality. We must bear in mind the choices and opportunities that they can provide, along with the possibility of maximising family income. In 96 per cent. of cases, men are prepared to be present for the birth of their children. They are there for their children; they do not want not to be there. We must capture that, and utilise it. It is a baseline for equality. It tells us that men, like women, want to be involved in both family and work.
	Last but not least in what is an inordinate gallop, let me say how much I enjoyed my last visit to India. My sister for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) spoke with passion and clarity about the value of meeting other women throughout the world. I should like to persuade the Indian Government to do what the Labour party has done in this country, and to accept that we must provide special mechanisms if we are to convince women that politics and politicians are taking them seriously, and that politics is where they could and should be. I think that women do politics differently. I say that unashamedly. I am not putting the men down; I simply think we are different. We do not play games, and we are most definitely determined to achieve in the realm of politics.
	Having met ordinary women who are members of SEWA, the Self-Employed Women's Association, I can say that women from semi-literate or illiterate rural communities have achieved so much despite having so little. Their tenacity, their guts, their determination to do better for their children, their sense of location with their communities all show that women can deliver. Women are delivering. I recommend that the House never underestimate that fact and that we should encourage—in whatever way, with whatever mechanisms we can—the greater involvement of women in our political life.

Laura Moffatt: It is a pleasure to follow my sister who was our leader in India and did a fantastic job. She is absolutely right that we did differently as women. My hon. Friend shared the responsibility of having the leadership role on that trip. It really showed how we could work together as sisters. It was a truly fantastic experience, which I shall never forget.
	I proudly possess at home a badge that says, "Labour women make policy and not tea". I love that badge, because it reminds me daily of the driver that got me into the House. On Saturday, however, I will be making tea with the Crawley Labour women's forum in the town centre for all the shoppers. We are doing it to promote the whole issue of free trade and to ensure that Fairtrade is made prominent. That group of women understands that securing more Fairtrade products in the UK will improve the lives of women around the world. That is why we have linked the two celebrations of Fairtrade and international women's day. We understand how important it is to improve the lives of women all over the world. Day by day, we are increasingly achieving that.
	Work remains to be done at home—the Government have made enormous strides—particularly on low pay. It is easy to say that we have improved the position by only 1 per cent. in a couple of years, but it was a hard-won 1 per cent., because it is extremely difficult to overcome all the social and cultural problems that reinforce prejudice. I pay tribute not only to the Government, but to the trade union movement, which is doing so much to help women. For example, Unison has helped health workers throughout the NHS. It has helped people with responsible jobs who are proud to be Unison members right down to cleaners who also contribute to the well-being of our hospitals.
	I should like to recount one story that affected me deeply. It is about a woman in my local hospital who, sadly, was attacked in the basement of the hospital while doing her job. The person who attacked her was unwell and had managed to get away from the accident and emergency unit. He knocked her to the ground and it was later discovered that he fractured her cheekbone. That woman was one of the lowest-paid workers, but the way in which she was treated was the important thing for her. She wanted to feel valued.
	In fact, the trust's response was very good. She was counselled through her difficulties and given extra support. She was allowed to carry an alarm when she eventually returned to work. However, the police response was not good: it did not value her. The police eventually rang her to say that, because the boy who attacked her came from a good home, they had decided only to caution him. She asked the question, "What sort of home do I come from?" She had worked hard and done the job that she was employed to do. I am pleased to say that we have managed to get the case reopened, which has given the woman a further sense of value and worth. I cannot resist leaving the House with the passing comment that I doubt whether the response would have been the same if a male doctor had been attacked.
	Plenty of important work is going on. It was disappointing, however, to hear an hon. Member argue in the House that women were all offered the same opportunities and that the careers service could go into a school and tell all the young women that they could be astronauts, so what was the problem? Of course, there is a huge problem. If we do not value women and work with them when they are young girls and begin to have career aspirations, they will not consider themselves able to do jobs throughout our community and society.
	That is why we need to be afraid of the attacks being mounted against Sure Start and the new deal for lone parents. It is no good just to talk the talk; we have to be able to put money into services and support women. Women who have taken advantage of the Sure Start services have been empowered and now have aspirations for their baby daughters. They know that that service has made them feel better about themselves and their children.
	Lone parents at the further education college in my constituency get their children looked after. They are able to do the things that they always wanted to do. Careers officers used to suggest things like nursing as suitable careers, but young women now are being enabled to get the education that they need for other jobs. It is incredibly important that we safeguard the services that help women, and that we ensure that women have the power to do all the things that we know that they can do.
	We must also help women to reach out to other women around the world. The beauty of our trip to India was that we had that sense of sisterhood. Whether we were with Sheila Dixshit, who runs Delhi, or two women working to improve conditions in a slum, we shared that lovely sisterhood. Today's debate is a celebration of that. I congratulate the Government on making sure that we come back every year to celebrate us as women. I hope that we will continue to do so always.

Vera Baird: I am delighted to follow my sister and hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), who made a dynamic speech. When I picked up the parliamentary Labour party briefing for this debate—which I am sure it is de rigueur not to mention in this Chamber—I was shocked to see how long it was. It details what Labour has done for women since 1997, and I do not jest when I say that my printer ran out of ink as I tried to download it. It was so heavy that I could not carry it, so I have not brought it with me today. I sat down to read it last night, but the task was so substantial that I considered being sponsored for charity. That would have let me hope that I could finish it in time.
	Seriously, however, there is not an aspect of women's lives that has not been improved immeasurably by this Government's policies. In that context, it was simply inspirational to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equality assert again today her commitment to do yet more. I have little time, so I will not dwell on how that contrasts with the miserable 20 years that women tolerated under the previous Conservative Government. I shall use the example of domestic violence, which is an issue close to my heart. This Government are introducing a Bill on a matter that was last the subject of legislation when Jo Richardson did the same more than 20 years ago—before the Tories came to power.
	The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is not in her place at the moment, although I know that she will soon return. It is a tribute to her that she should have raised—albeit somewhat tangentially—the issue of domestic violence at the last-but-one Conservative party conference in 2002. The House will deduce that I am an avid reader of the Conservative party website, but the hon. Lady made the point that that was the first time that domestic violence had ever been raised at the Tory party conference.
	I was going to talk about the proposed commission for equality and human rights, and say that I welcome it but want more. However, I shall abandon my legal lecture to echo the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) that a public sector duty to promote gender equality be established in the near future.
	The work of Fawcett has been much praised already. For the past year, I have had the privilege of chairing its commission on women and criminal justice. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) is a commissioner, as is the Liberal Democrat leader in the other place, Lord Dholakia. Our final report will come out in about a month. In it, we shall make it clear that there is systemic sex discrimination in the criminal justice system.
	The system is made up of many sectors. The Crown Prosecution Service—I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for that usage: in future, I shall call it the public prosecution service—is quite good for women. The judiciary and the prisons sector are not so good. We conclude that the criminal justice system, where almost all the multiple sources of input are public sector, has gender discrimination steeped within it. That will have to be tackled. It is argued that it will be tackled across such multiple sources of input only if there is a public sector duty to tackle it.
	When I was reading my way laboriously through the long PLP briefing on how women have benefited from the Labour party, I was so wearied by the long read that when I came across a section that I now see is clearly headed "Diversity in the boardroom", I misread it as "Diversity in the bedroom". However, I want to talk briefly now about diversity in the snooker room—in other words, how strongly I will support the Sex Discrimination (Clubs and Other Private Associations) Bill, which is to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright).
	At the cost, I dare say, of a few Redcar male votes and perhaps not being bought a drink on Saturday night in the Eston and California club, I shall tell a brief story about the snooker room. It is not right that women cannot go into the snooker room there; what we cannot do is play snooker. I asked why and expected to hear that women were such idiots that they would smash the baize with the cue, but no, no, it is much more complicated than that. If a woman leans across to do a long shot and her skirt comes up, somebody looks at her legs and her boyfriend hits him, there will be a fight and it will be the woman who has caused it by playing snooker. I do not know how long it took the club committee to dream up that excuse to avoid being pasted by good women snooker players, but truly I almost resolved to go to snooker classes. Then I calmed down. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Telford on his intention to introduce a Bill to put an end to this stupidity once and for all. Truly the Eston and Cali club is a pleasant place. It looks after its members and pensioners, male and female, extraordinarily well, but it is at the price of women having to acknowledge their second-class status. I think that the Government intend to support the Bill and I welcome that.
	Finally on the occasion of this momentous day for women which we celebrate as women Members of Parliament, I shall briefly mention earlier women who had to contend with much more than being excluded from a game of snooker and who fought, argued and, in at least one case, died so that we could have our equal rights and, of particular resonance to us, the right to vote. There is a current issue about Sylvia Pankhurst. She was a socialist feminist who, during the campaign for women's suffrage at the turn of the century, not only braved the horrors of hunger striking and forced feeding, but founded and built a remarkable women's organisation in the east end of London. The group, the East London Federation of Suffragettes, was composed of working-class women. The suffragette movement was almost exclusively middle class apart from this. They campaigned for the vote and for social change until 1920, sticking with it long after the Women's Social and Political Union run by Sylvia's mother Emmeline and her sister Christabel had pulled out of the fight.
	There is much more to be said about Sylvia Pankhurst—not least, harking back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) said, that she went to live in Ethiopia. She worked hard there and championed Ethiopia when it was conquered by fascist Italy. She was invited to live there and when she died she was given a state funeral. I had the privilege of visiting her grave twice last year and the year before when I went to Ethiopia to talk to the judiciary about how to deal with domestic violence—the Ethiopian judiciary know a lot more than the Conservative party about that—and then to talk to the police about domestic violence. What wonderful women I met there, and how they all remember what Sylvia Pankhurst did for them.
	Returning home, I believe that Sylvia's strategy, based as it was on an alliance between class and gender, did far more to win the vote for all women than the more elitist and, ultimately, probably diversionary politics of her mother and sister. It is thus richly ironic that the British state has chosen to honour Emmeline and Christabel for their contribution to women's suffrage with a statue to the former and a plaque to the latter outside Parliament while completely ignoring Sylvia's role. She would not especially have liked such a memorial but, as a symbol of the unsung heroism of thousands of working-class women who fought for the franchise and for socialism, some kind of recognition in the form of a statue is long overdue and would at long last help to correct the historical record.
	I alert women to the position of the campaign for a statue of Sylvia Pankhurst on College green. Westminster city council has given planning permission for that wonderful statue, and Members may know that the Accommodation and Works Committee of the House of Commons, which has some responsibility in such matters, has agreed. However, the Administration and Works Committee of the House of Lords has turned down the proposal, saying that if a statue were to be put in such a key position there would have to be a competition. However, the site has been empty for a long time and no one has applied. The Committee also claimed that the statue does not have artistic stature, yet its members have never seen the statue.
	Apparently, the decision falls to the House of Commons Commission. What better tribute could there be than for our debate to galvanise the Commission into allowing that long overdue memorial to be raised? I hope that all Members will do everything that they can to press and lobby the Commission to ensure that the campaign comes to a successful conclusion. I venture to say to my sisters that if history has to repeat itself and we are obliged to chain ourselves to railings, I hope they will all be there.

Cheryl Gillan: In winding up this excellent debate, I preface my remarks by congratulating everyone who made a contribution, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who is not in the Chamber at present. Owing to the brevity of the contributions during the past hour or so, we have started the winding-up speeches slightly earlier than anticipated, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will soon join us. As old protagonists in the Chamber realise, we hold this debate on women's issues annually. Sadly, such debates are inevitable while the inequalities at home and abroad—many of which have been highlighted today—continue to exist.
	The Minister for Women and Equality, who opened the debate, talked in a slightly smug fashion about the late Member for Kensington and Chelsea in a way that was not worthy of the remainder of her contribution. I knew Alan Clark as a colleague; he was always thoroughly charming to me and to all my colleagues—[Interruption.] The Solicitor-General says that Alan Clark was never a woman—that is indeed the one thing of which we could never accuse him.
	The Minister told us a harrowing tale about a Sierra Leonean woman. There was consensus, reflected by the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), on the victims of conflict and the horrors of war. In her remarks on Iraq, the Minister reminded the House of the disproportionate effects of war on women and children.
	The Minister spoke of the positive effects of migration, which are undeniable. However, I felt that she did not emphasise strongly enough the fact that when we recruit skilled workers from other parts of the world we often deprive their systems of valuable workers, such as nurses. When I talked to Members of the New Zealand Parliament, they reminded me that they pay for the education and training of their nurses and doctors but, sadly, cannot meet the salaries that we offer in the UK, so they lose many of their skilled people abroad. I know that the Minister is aware of that problem, so I hope that she will reflect on it and try to find a way in which we can achieve a better balance.
	I share the Minister's views on honour killing and the mutilation of women. I share, too, her views on job segregation and pay levels. I am particularly keen to see women in science and engineering and I shall refer later to the speech by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas). I look forward to receiving the results of the review to which the Minister referred.
	I look forward to hearing more details about the commission. It will be an exciting step forward, and I hope that when the Minister for Industry and the Regions, the right hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), concludes the debate she can give us some more information. We look forward to the development of the commission as time passes.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden eloquently outlined the problems presented by the pay gap, and it seems extraordinary to me—and I am sure to all hon. Members in the Chamber—that in this country in 2004, despite the strides that we have made in so many areas over the past century, people of equal ability are rewarded with effectively unequal pay. Perhaps we should send copies of this debate to all City institutions to put pressure on companies to address the pay gap as a priority. My hon. Friend has managed to achieve headlines in the Evening Standard on the subject this evening, which I am sure that the Minister will agree is a commendable piece of publicity on behalf of women. I hope that those City institutions will read what she says in the Evening Standard.
	My hon. Friend went on to cover the cases of women employed in less-skilled areas of work who, by anyone's terms of reference, are often exploited, not least because they juggle family responsibilities and the need to bring an income into the household. The points that she made on pensions were telling, and I shall refer to them when I consider the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).
	The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) kicked off the debate, and her speech about people with learning disabilities and the sensitive issues of sexual abuse and rape was very good. As a former social worker, she obviously brings her skill and experience to the debate, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and I are leading for the Opposition on the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, we will certainly undertake to examine her suggestions, as I hope will others involved with the Bill such as the Attorney-General.
	The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) made a general speech covering areas such as education, domestic violence and trafficking, but I was a little surprised—as were Government Front Benchers—to find that she is not entirely in agreement with the rest of her party. I hope that she finds consensus with her party's policies soon. We look forward to hearing her develop her own independent theories, because it is so rewarding when the Liberals are independently minded.
	The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) focused on women in Wales, which is the land of my birth. There is 50:50 gender representation in the Welsh Assembly, and she asked who will commit to 30 per cent. of Members in Westminster being women. I will refer to that point later, because it is a good, international target that is recognised by many women around the world.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) gave us a balanced, realistic view of equality in unemployment, family life and sex education. I hope that her headmistress, who suggested that she become a teacher or a nurse, can see her now. Her experience informs her work in her role as a school governor, and I am sure that she will ensure that no female children in our modern, updated education system get the same advice that she got.
	The hon. Member for Crosby struck a chord with me. When I first entered the House, I was a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology for three years and as a result of what I learned I am as enthusiastic as her about WISE. I thought that her speech was a long and formidable advert for science and engineering and, if she will forgive the pun, she is a "WISE" woman. My family is doing its bit for WISE: I am proud to report that my step-granddaughter, Diana Leeming, has got her first real job as a research scientist in Denmark after spending many years at university working on a PhD. She started her job yesterday, and there were great celebrations in my house—at least one member of my family is a woman going into science and engineering.
	I entered the House at the same time as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, and we are veterans of these debates. Her well-informed contribution on older women and women's finance and pensions will be welcome on both sides of the House. She used practical examples of cases that she is dealing with, and she admirably raised the problem of women's pensions poverty in the UK today.
	There is an awful lot of agreement in the House on these issues, and I must pay tribute to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who has done tremendous work on forced marriages. I remember debating the issue from the Dispatch Box, and she has been a tireless champion. I do not think that any of us, men or women, have the entire answer to that terrible problem. I see it in my constituency and she sees it in her constituency. I welcome her practical suggestions and I hope that there is some chance of a positive response. Perhaps an amendment could be tabled to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, because forced marriage is domestic violence against women. We would be willing to consider an amendment that could make a difference to the environment in which those women live.
	The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) brought to her contribution the energy that she brings to her singing. I was very pleased to hear from her, as I was to hear from the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), who will be out making coffee. I am tempted to come along, but I will be running a surgery in my constituency that morning. The issue of fair trade is very important, because women are disproportionately affected by some of the decisions taken on trade—as we all know. She obviously enjoyed her visit to India.
	The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and I are working on the same commission, as she acknowledged. I was sorry that she chose to take so many side-swipes at the Conservative party, because we are no less passionate about the equality of women and I assure her that when we are sitting on the Government Benches with a larger number of MPs, we too will increase the number of women in the House. I was interested in her fight over the statue; it was the first time that I had heard of the problem. I cannot speak for my hon. Friends, but I can speak for myself and I agree that it is about time that Sylvia Pankhurst was recognised. It is appalling that we have hit the buffers on the issue, so if there is any cross-party action that I can take with my sisters—I cannot believe that I said that—on the other side of the House, I am willing to join in, in the spirit of us against the rest of them.

Helen Jackson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Cheryl Gillan: No, I do not have enough time.
	It will be 10 years ago next year since one of the first things that I did as a newly promoted Minister in the Department for Education and Employment was to travel to Beijing on behalf of the Government to sign up to the platform for action. It was the occasion of the fourth UN world conference on women and marked a turning point in the commitments that Governments made to make progress across a broad range of issues affecting women throughout the world. We believed that the conference was so significant that we sent three Ministers to represent the UK—myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, and Baroness Chalker, whom you know well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from her days in this House. The declaration and the platform for action stated that
	"the human rights of women are an inalienable, integral and indivisible part of universal rights".
	Nine years on, that is still relevant but is as yet uncompleted and there remains much to do.
	Governments and the United Nations still need to prioritise women's full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and ensure that strategies are in place not only to prevent gender-based discrimination and violence, but to provide protection and to investigate and punish human rights abuses against women. Governments and the UN still need to ensure that countries ensure the protection and promotion of human rights and take effective action whether the abuse of such rights is carried out by a private person or a state official. We have made progress in the UK, but I hope that our contributions from this Parliament will continue to promote closure on the aims of the platform for action internationally.
	On the international front, Amnesty International, whose work we all respect, will launch a global campaign tomorrow entitled, "Stop The Violence Against Women", and we can support that campaign from the House, irrespective of our position or our politics. In its briefing, it reminds us of Kofi Annan's words in 1999 to mark the last international women's day of the last century.
	"Violence against women is perhaps the most shameful human rights violation, and it is perhaps the most pervasive. It knows no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth. As long as it continues, we cannot claim to be making real progress towards equality, development, and peace."
	Amnesty International also reminds us of some of the horrifying statistics on violence against women, and it takes my breath away to recount them. At least one in three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime. The Russian Government estimate that 14,000 women were killed by their partners or relatives in 1999 alone. The World Heath Organisation reported that up to 70 per cent. of female murder victims were killed by their male partners. I hope that we will all support Amnesty International's campaign.
	We think that we must be doing better in the UK, but since the beginning of our debate, police forces throughout the country will have taken in excess of 240 calls about domestic violence, because every minute of the day a domestic violence incident is reported to the police somewhere in the UK. Approximately 240 women—it is mostly women on the receiving end—will have been assaulted or put in fear to such an extent that they or a concerned neighbour will have called the police. In fact, 25 per cent. of all recorded violent crime in England and Wales is accounted for by domestic violence, and on average two women a week are killed by their husband, boyfriend or ex-boyfriend.
	We have a long way to go, but I hope that the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, which will shortly come before this House, will give us all the opportunity to improve the protections and safeguards available to women. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and I look forward to working with the Government on taking the agenda forward positively. It will give me great personal satisfaction, even from the relatively impotent position of opposition, to help to fulfil one of the commitments that we made at Beijing: to develop a comprehensive national strategy to eliminate violence against women in all its forms. The Bill is one more step along the road.
	As a society, we should acknowledge the pervasiveness of violence against women and confront the attitudes and discrimination that give rise to it and marginalise it. As politicians, our challenge is to ensure that the Government have well resourced strategies in place both at home and abroad, through our foreign and development policy.
	I want to mention briefly the situation of another group of women, which has not been mentioned today, yet is extremely important: women in prison. The women's prison population has more than doubled over the past 10 years, and as the Government are increasing the capacity of the system it is clear that they expect more women to be sent to prison. However, of the women sent to prison, more than 70 per cent. have never been in custody before and almost half have been abused. More than 40 per cent. self-harm or attempt suicide, and more than 60 per cent. have children. Imprisonment has a disruptive affect on family units irrespective of sex, but when a woman with family responsibilities goes to prison it has a disproportionate effect. Inevitably, in many cases their children go into care, and in more than 85 per cent. of cases it will be the first time that the children have been separated from their mother. On release, the women do not automatically repair their family unit. Many women who lived with their children prior to imprisonment do not expect to have their children returned on their release.
	The cycle of deprivation is almost inevitable, with girls again disproportionately affected. The London school of economics research centre for the analysis of social exclusion has shown that girls who had been in care or been fostered were especially likely to have extra-marital births, to have had three or more live-in partners, to become teenage mothers, and to experience several other negative adult outcomes—homelessness, lack of qualifications and low household income. Boys seem to be less vulnerable to the negative consequences of care and fostering than girls. That gender difference in the effect of care as an antecedent to social exclusion is dramatic. A third of women prisoners currently lose their home while they are in prison and typically the loss of home also results in the loss of possessions, which are often just thrown away.
	The Prison Reform Trust has done some tremendous research on women's imprisonment, and it shows how so many of the problems facing prisoners on release are almost insoluble in the current climate. That issue must be examined carefully so that we prevent not only a conveyor belt to crime, but a revolving door of exclusion through inadequate responses to women's needs. I hope that the Minister can comment briefly on the Government's attitude to women offenders, and especially on the dramatic rise in the number of women who are being incarcerated in the UK.
	The debate has once again raised the complex issues surrounding the situation of women in all areas of the world and all walks of life. I am delighted that the Government continue to follow the precedent that we set when in government of calling a debate in Government time, but I will finish on the same note as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden. My greatest regret is that in 2004, we are still fighting for equality and human rights for women, wherever they are. I want to play my part in helping to make these debates redundant by reaching a stage at which there are no longer injustices or inequalities. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how she and I can contribute to that goal together.

Jacqui Smith: I thoroughly agree with the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) about the high quality of the debate. I thank everyone for their thoughtful contributions. I also thank the many organisations that are working with women throughout the United Kingdom and internationally, especially the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Women's National Commission. Similarly, I thank my officials in the women and equality unit and the many women throughout our constituencies who are caring for their children and older relatives and keeping our schools and hospitals running, as volunteers or paid employees, breaking down barriers at work and forming the backbone of many of our voluntary organisations.
	The debate gives us the chance to remember the ongoing struggle of women throughout the world for basic human rights: the right to vote, the right to have personal freedom and safety to play their role in public life and the right to better education, pay and working conditions.
	In its international element, the debate reminds us of the interests that we share throughout the world. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women outlined vividly the challenges and responsibilities that we face: to update John Donne for the day, no man or woman is an island. We share responsibilities for fellow women throughout the world.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) rightly said that as the global economy and trade brings opportunities to us in the UK, so it brings a responsibility to ensure that those benefits are not gained at the expense of others, particularly poorer women elsewhere in the world. As democratically elected politicians, we share a responsibility to ensure that women throughout the world benefit from political representation and have political voices. As we demand and implement action to tackle rape and domestic violence in the UK, we must also challenge violence against women throughout the world.
	The original international women's day slogan—bread and roses—symbolises the demands for economic security and a better quality of life. Those aspirations still form the basis of our actions today. I am pleased to say that we have come a long way since then thanks to the determination and courage of women in the past. Women in the UK have had the vote for almost 80 years, although I have to say that I agree with everything that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said about Sylvia Pankhurst.
	We need to do more to ensure that women's voices are heard at all levels of public life. As more and more girls throughout the world are going to school and gaining qualifications, we need to ensure that they are able to use their qualifications to get the reward that they deserve from the work that they go into. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), using her experience, identified the important task of breaking down occupational segregation in science and engineering. I congratulate her on her contribution to Women in Science and Engineering. I am pleased that it is celebrating its 20th birthday this year. In the UK, the number of girls graduating in male-dominated subjects such as science, engineering and technology has increased by more than half. However, we need to do more to ensure that that expertise builds our engineering and manufacturing.
	I am fortunate to be Deputy Minister for Women and Equality and Minister for Industry and the Regions, with responsibility for manufacturing. Some people ask, "What are the links between those two parts of your job?" When I go to manufacturing companies, their representatives tell me, understandably, that they are concerned to ensure that they get the best people with the highest level of skills. I look around and find that there are hardly any female faces. I think that the link between the two parts of my job is obvious.
	The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) talked about the choices that women might want to make. She said several times that women have children and that that influences their choices. Yes, it does, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) rightly said, fathers want increasingly and rightly to take their place in caring for their children. Nowadays, women have more opportunities to work, and fathers play a greater role at home. However, the challenge is to ensure that they have genuine choices about whether to work or stay at home, and to support them in balancing work and family life. Those choices did not come about by accident—the Government acted to support workers who requested the right to work flexibly and gave extra support, including financial support, to families and children.
	It was welcome that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) concentrated on equal pay. She is right about the challenge in the financial services sector, which is why we support the initiative by the Equal Opportunities Commission. She was also right about social care. Having had ministerial responsibility for social care, I am aware of the investment that the Government are making in training, the changes that the General Social Care Council are making to the status of such workers and the overall investment that is being made in personal social services, which will feed through to achieve the pay that women deserve. Under the plans of the shadow Chancellor, cuts would of course be implemented. The hon. Lady made an important point about information, particularly for low-paid women seeking equal pay. Given the need for more information, we have introduced an equal pay questionnaire, and I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar in her advice that low-paid women would do well to join a union. Thanks to the Government, they can join a union that is recognised in the workplace.
	Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Meriden and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) spoke about pensions and older women. Many of the poorest and most vulnerable pensioners in our society are women, which is why the Government have introduced a range of policies that benefit women directly, including the state second pension, stakeholder pensions and the pension credit, all of which aim to ensure that women who lose out because of caring responsibilities or lower levels of pay or pensioner income are supported. Without descending into party political point scoring, we should be in no doubt that given the Conservatives' determination to cut public spending, their proposals for an earnings link could be achieved only by cutting support for the poorest pensioners, which would result in a redistribution of resources from the poorest women pensioners. Another important issue for older women is access to cheap public transport, and the ability to get around independently. I hope that the hon. Member for Meriden will urge her Conservative colleagues in Redditch borough council, including their prospective parliamentary candidate, to rescind their decision to cut free bus transport for older people, including women.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) ably identified the need to ensure that women with learning disabilities have adequate protection and to enable them to make their own decisions wherever possible. She acknowledged that progress had been made in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and her reasoned arguments for changes to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill will doubtless receive a further hearing.
	The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) commented on the importance of ensuring that girls and women are offered opportunities in science and can progress in such work. Like other hon. Members, she rightly highlighted the issue of domestic violence, and called for more equal pay audits. As the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) pointed out, that may not be in line with Liberal Democrat policy. I, too, was surprised, because I understood that the Liberal Democrat manifesto had already been written and e-mailed around the Welsh Assembly. In the spirit of sisterhood, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) could help the hon. Member for Romsey out with her party's plans.
	The hon. Member for Romsey made some important observations about post-conflict situations, particularly the need for both political and economic development to safeguard the position of women. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women acknowledged, there are considerable problems, but there has also been considerable progress. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her commitment and action in ensuring that this matter is kept at the front of our minds for Government action.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North very ably outlined the difference that women have made in public life from India to Wales. She rightly pointed out the situation in Wales. We should congratulate the Welsh Assembly on the fact that 50 per cent. of its Members are women. In Wales the Government changed the law to enable action to support women getting into the Assembly. The Labour party there—and now in the United Kingdom as a whole—has made use of it, and we have seen the difference that that has made.
	I strongly endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham about the considerable efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer)—and, I must say, her considerable bravery—in tackling the issue of forced marriages. My hon. Friend made an informed and considered, but also impassioned, contribution on the subject. As I think she recognised, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in particular now has considerable resources devoted to the issue, as well as a unit devoted to it, which I know has already produced guidance for police forces and social services. I have no doubt that it will listen to my hon. Friend's concerns, expressed in a measured way, with a view to improving the situation even further.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar pushed again on the issue of the public duty for gender equality. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women made clear our commitment to and support for that public duty. I also assure my hon. and learned Friend that we shall support the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright). I look forward to her playing snooker in the very near future.
	One of the ways to guarantee the progress demanded by hon. Members today is to ensure that there is a strong institutional framework to tackle discrimination and promote equality. It was to ensure this that we carried out the first review of our equality institutions for 25 years, and, last October, announced the creation of a Commission for Equality and Human Rights. It will champion equality and human rights, give better support and advice to individuals, businesses and public authorities and crack down on discrimination.
	A single body will have a stronger impact, and, in its ability to work across strands, will fit better with how we see ourselves and what factors lead to disadvantage. People do not see themselves as categories, but we know that a woman from a particular ethnic or religious background may face different challenges in getting a fair deal from those faced by a disabled woman.
	We are not only drawing together the existing equality commissions along with the new equality legislation, but are adding the promotion of human rights to the mix. In fact, we are putting human rights at the heart of the new politics of equality.
	We brought home the rights in the European convention on human rights in the Human Rights Act 1998. What really interests me about human rights legislation is the practical difference it makes to the lives of ordinary people. The Act enables us to tackle issues that are mainstream, not marginal. For example, how should our public services treat us? What do we do when one person's basic rights conflict with another's?
	The new body will be able to work to embed a culture of respect for human rights in public services and help public bodies to understand their obligations under the Human Rights Act. It will help to improve public service delivery by supporting the move away from a one-size-fits-all approach to public services, and human rights values will help the new body to balance one person's rights against another's.
	In conclusion, I again thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. The message must go out loud and clear that pursuing equality is not a minority pursuit. It is about ensuring opportunity for all, making full use of the talent that lies within our economy and society, with gains to the whole economy and all of us. I want to live, and I want my sons to grow up, in a society and a country where prejudice and discrimination are challenged, where everyone has the opportunity to reach their full potential, where people's talents, skills and differences are recognised, acknowledged and valued, and where we can all feel safe and live in communities built on respect for each other. We value international solidarity, so we recognise our responsibility to ensure that across the world as well. As a Government we will continue to work to that end.
	It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

MORECAMBE BAY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Geraldine Smith: In this debate I intend to confine my remarks to an examination of written information that I have received from the Home Office relating to enforcement action by the immigration service in the Morecambe bay area, which I believe to be inaccurate and misleading, and to the subsequent statements made by Government spokespersons to the media that that information was true.
	With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall begin by quoting relevant passages of the correspondence between the Home Office and myself, and go on to identify the parts that I believe to be inaccurate and misleading. I shall then give details of the events that did occur in Morecambe. Finally, I shall sum up and invite the Minister to answer the points that I have raised.
	I wrote to the Minister of State at the Home Office informing her of a report that I had received from one of my constituents, who is a fisherwoman. My constituent contacted me after being involved in a Department for Work and Pensions and police raid on Pilling sands on 19 June last year. She apprised me of her concerns about the exploitation and danger faced by a large number of people of Asian origin. She told me that the police and the DWP had been unable to interview any of those people because they did not speak English and did not have an interpreter with them. She said that she had been told that despite making efforts over a number of weeks, the police had been unable to get the immigration service to participate in the raid.
	I subsequently received a reply dated 8 August 2003 from a junior Home Office Minister that included the following paragraphs:
	"You have commented that the circumstances point to a large number of illegal immigrants at work that day and you say that Lancashire Constabulary and local DWP agents had planned this operation but apparently had been unable to get co-operation from the Immigration authorities.
	I can confirm that the Immigration Service staff were aware of this operation. The DWP and the Police had contacted our office in Liverpool and discussed a matter with them.
	Let me begin by saying that several of the issues your constituent has raised, namely the evasion of tax on national insurance, rates of pay and the use of over laden boats are not matters over which the Immigration Service has any jurisdiction. These are matters for other agencies and those agencies do not need the Immigration Service present in order to conduct an investigation.
	These agencies are able to provide their own interpreters and interview them using their own powers.
	The issue over which the Immigration Service does have jurisdiction is that of illegal immigrants. I can tell you that similar exercises to this have been carried out in Morecambe Bay and other similar areas in the past, which the Immigration Service have participated in."
	The Minister goes on to explain in some detail the particular difficulties in dealing with Chinese illegal immigrants, and states:
	"Accordingly local managers must decide which area of work is likely to be most productive and allocate resources accordingly. For these reasons, rather than any unwillingness to tackle illegal immigration or co-operate with the DWP and police, it was decided that it would not be appropriate in this particular operation."
	After the recent tragedy in Morecambe bay, the full contents of both of those letters became public knowledge, and there was widespread media interest in the fact that the immigration service had chosen not to participate in the Pilling sands operation. The Government were widely reported as saying that Pilling sands was an isolated case and that the immigration service had been involved in a number of similar operations in Morecambe bay and elsewhere, both before and since the incident.
	When I was asked by a journalist to comment on that statement, I said that I had no knowledge of any recent operations taking place in Morecambe bay and that I would seek to obtain the details of any such operations as soon as possible. On 12 February, I met the Minister at the Home Office and raised the matter with her. Bearing in mind the Government's public position on the subject, I was rather surprised that neither she nor her officials had any information readily to hand. She did, however, undertake to supply it to me as a matter of urgency. Indeed, next day I received a letter from her in which she stated:
	"I explained that there is ongoing enforcement activity in the Morecambe Bay area, with the specific purpose of tackling the cockle-picking problem. A successful police and immigration operation went ahead in August 2003, just before you received a reply from Fiona Mactaggart on the previous DWP operation in June. On this occasion 37 cockle-pickers were arrested. You were not aware until today that this had taken place and explained that this may have been because it took place in a part of the bay that was not in your constituency. I have attached at Annex A a specific breakdown of the relevant activity."
	That breakdown listed the following immigration operations under the heading, "Immigration service activity involving cockle-pickers in Morecambe bay since June 2003". I quote:
	"19th June 2003—Pilling Sands, near Morecambe . . . 19 June a joint police and DWP operation was conducted at Pilling Sands near Morecambe Bay. This was primarily an intelligence-led operation focused on benefit fraud. The intelligence and planning was focused on the police and DWP as the priority agencies for this particular operation.
	5th August 2003—Morecambe Bay (the sandbank close to Morecambe town) . . . 37 Chinese cockle pickers were arrested by the police in Morecambe Bay. This was a police led operation. UKIS provided Immigration Officer assistance.
	6th August 2003—Morecambe Bay (the sandbank close to Morecambe town) . . . The following day, on 6 August DWP led operation was scheduled to take place and UKIS had allocated Immigration Staff to assist. Because of the previous day's operation by the police, there were no further arrests on this occasion."
	A cursory glance at the details associated with the three operations purported to have taken place in the Morecambe bay area told me that the information that I had been given was seriously flawed. Therefore, having carefully considered the options open to me, I decided to write back to the Minister on 19 February to make her aware of my concerns and to ask her to investigate the issue. I also informed her that I felt that I had a duty to place what had occurred on the public record. She replied to me later on the same day, stating:
	"One of the objectives of the meeting was to brief you on the Immigration Department's enforcement activity in relation to cockle-picking in general and most particularly that in Morecambe Bay. The details I supplied about the major Police/Immigration Service operation on 4/5th of August were correct and I stand by them."
	Does the Minister still stand by them? She continued:
	"I also included details of the DWP operation on 6th August which IND officials mistakenly informed me was in Morecambe Bay. In fact, although it was another cockle-picking operation, it took place elsewhere in the North West. Obviously I regret this minor error but I hope you agree it does not in any way materially affect the information I was providing you on the major operation that took place in August 2003 in Morecambe."
	The Minister's position was further reinforced by a Government spokesperson who confirmed to the media that the information that had been given was correct. In view of that, I decided to write to the Home Secretary to ask for a meeting to discuss the issue. I was therefore rather surprised when, on 23 February, in reply to a question from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the Minister of State said that she was holding an inquiry into the information that I had been given. The Home Secretary subsequently confirmed that in his reply to my letter. I am left to wonder what prompted her change of heart.
	I shall outline the specific reasons for my belief that the information that I received from the Minister is misleading and inaccurate. I ask for the following points to be considered. First, to cite the operation on Pilling sands as an example of immigration service enforcement activity beggars belief. The fact that the immigration service had declined to participate in that operation triggered my original letter to the Minister in June last year. It appears that affirmed inactivity is being claimed as positive action.
	Secondly, I am concerned about the operation that allegedly took place on 5 August in Morecambe bay on a sandbank close to Morecambe town. No operation took place on any sandbank close to Morecambe town on that day or on any other day that year. The cockle beds in my constituency were closed until December. No one picking cockles was arrested, as stated in the details associated with the alleged raid. That probably explains why I was unaware of the activity—it simply did not happen.
	My third point refers to the operation that is listed in annexe A as occurring on 6 August 2003 in Morecambe bay on a sandbank close to Morecambe town. Although the Minister acknowledges in her letter of 19 February that the specific location was incorrect, I do not agree that the substitution of a precise site for a vague location
	"elsewhere in the North West"
	was a "minor" error.
	Even more serious is the statement in the annexe that
	"because of the previous day's operation by the police there were no further arrests on this occasion."
	The link between the two operations that were alleged to have taken place at the same precise location rules out the possibility that the inaccurate information could have been supplied in error or through incompetence. It is clear to me that whoever was responsible for producing the information set out deliberately to mislead.
	I understand that the Department for Work and Pensions operation on 6 August took place in the Dee estuary and would not have been affected by a police operation in Morecambe. I also understand that the immigration service did not participate in the operation on the Dee. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that. I believe that the points that I have raised clearly justify my claim that the information that I received from the Minister was misleading and inaccurate.
	I should like to refer to two events that happened in Morecambe and involved the immigration service. The first took place just before midnight on 29 July last year. Following complaints from local residents, the police attended a house in central Morecambe and found 22 people, who were believed to be Chinese, occupying a ground-floor flat. Most of those people spoke little or no English and the police were unable to establish their status as regards their presence in this country. Despite repeated attempts, they were unable to contact the immigration service for help, getting only an out-of-hours answerphone. The police did not have the capacity to house the 22 people safely in custody if they arrested them, and the owner of the premises insisted that they were removed. The police removed them from the property and left them to wander the streets of Morecambe in the middle of the night, cold and wet.
	The second event took place on 4 August last year. Again, following complaints from local residents, police attended a house in Morecambe and arrested 37 Chinese nationals on suspicion of being illegal immigrants. They housed those arrested in police stations in Morecambe, Lancaster and Fleetwood. The first arrests took place at 4.35 pm, and the immigration service was immediately contacted. It took it some 20 hours to arrive to help the police to process those arrested. I understand that the police may hold people for only 24 hours. All those arrested were then released back into the community.
	I stress that both those operations arose as a result of complaints from members of the public relating to antisocial behaviour, and were in no way, in the words of the Minister,
	"part of ongoing enforcement activity in the Morecambe Bay area with the specific purpose of tackling the cockle picking problem."
	In closing, I draw the House's attention to the fact that I have submitted a number of named-day questions to the Home Office, which it has as yet failed to answer. Therefore, will the Minister answer the following questions when she replies? Will she confirm that the information that I received in her letter of 12 February was inaccurate and misleading? Will she confirm that no police or immigration service operation took place in Morecambe bay on a sandbank close to Morecambe town on 4, 5 or 6 August 2003? Will she confirm that no persons picking cockles were arrested in Morecambe bay as a result of police operations in Morecambe bay on 4, 5 or 6 August 2003?
	Can the Minister give details of any proactive, multi-agency, ongoing enforcement activity in the Morecambe bay area with the specific purpose of tackling the cockle-picking problem during 2003? Can she say who was responsible for the inaccurate and misleading information that I received? Can she say what, if any, remedial action is being considered? Can she assure me that when the Home Office has finished its internal inquiry into the matter, a full statement will be made to the House? Finally, when she replies to the debate, will she concentrate on answering as many of my questions as she can, and not seek to avoid them by giving the House a sermon on Government policy?

Beverley Hughes: I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) for the detailed work that she has undertaken, for the support that she has shown to her constituents, both on the night of the tragedy in Morecambe bay, 5 February, and subsequently, and for her work to ensure that everything is done to prevent such an event from happening again. The Government and I share the widespread concern about that night's tragic events, and sympathise with the bereaved. The police investigation is ongoing, and I am confident that the police's ability to bring the perpetrators to justice will prevail.
	The current position is that a number of people have been arrested on suspicion of manslaughter in connection with the deaths that night. I cannot give further details, but two immigration officers continue to provide their full-time support to the police, and they have already provided invaluable assistance with the identification of the deceased.
	The subject of the debate is, primarily, the information that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), and I provided about various incidents involving cockle pickers in Morecambe bay last summer. It will help our debate if I briefly set out the background to those incidents, and the related correspondence.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale said, she wrote to me on 28 June to express her concerns about cockle picking in her constituency, and in particular her concern about the immigration service's apparent non-attendance at an operation involving the Department for Work and Pensions and Lancashire police at Pilling sands, near Morecambe, on 19 June. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replied on 8 August. She confirmed that the operation on 19 June had primarily focused on benefit fraud, and that previous operations had found few, if any, removable offenders. The letter went on to say that intelligence suggested that that would be the situation on 19 June and that the Chinese nationals concerned—if there were any—would not provide us with sufficient evidence to mount a charge for employment offences against those who employed them. The position then, as now, was that the immigration service, and any other service involved in policing illegal working, had to maximise the effectiveness of its enforcement resources in the light of various competing priorities. It was felt that the attendance of the immigration service on 19 June would not, because of the nature of that particular operation, be an effective use of resources.
	My hon. Friend mentioned that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently announced an examination of the resourcing and management of immigration enforcement. This will examine issues including the resources currently devoted to enforcing the immigration law in this country, and how those resources are deployed. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary also set out in her letter the fact that the immigration service was fully committed to assisting the police and other agencies with tackling the problems associated with illegal working and with cockling in Morecambe bay, and I would like to say that that remains the case. She evidenced this commitment by reference to incidents involving cockle pickers which the immigration service had supported both in Morecambe and elsewhere, before the operation on Pilling sands. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale has had that information, but she has chosen not to mention it today.
	On 4 August 2003, the police arrested 37 cockle pickers in Morecambe. I understand that the police received telephone calls during early August concerning groups of apparently illegal Chinese immigrants. Those calls related either to the occupation of local premises or to cockling on local public fisheries. On 4 August, the police attended a local address following further complaints of suspicious activity, and police records show that they started to arrest Chinese cockle pickers at 4.35 pm on 4 August 2003. Police records indicate that they first contacted the immigration service's office about the activity that they were undertaking during the evening of 4 August.

Geraldine Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Beverley Hughes: I should like to finish this point because it is important—

Geraldine Smith: This is important.

Beverley Hughes: It is important to get this in sequence, but I shall certainly give way in a moment.
	The police made a significant number of arrests and made arrangements for the safe accommodation overnight of the detainees at police custody suites in the area. During the morning of 5 August, the immigration service's Liverpool office immediately started to draw a team together, with the equipment necessary to interview, fingerprint, photograph and serve illegal entry papers on the Chinese nationals, as appropriate.

Geraldine Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Beverley Hughes: I am just finishing this point.

Geraldine Smith: This is important.

Beverley Hughes: I will give way in a moment.
	Having completed checks during the morning against the relevant databases and obtained an interpreter, an immigration officer from Liverpool arrived at Lancaster police station at 1.24 pm to assist the police in identifying the immigration status of those who did not appear on Home Office records. Two immigration officers continue to provide support to police in the area.

Geraldine Smith: Will the Minister comment on the operations that she referred to in her letter to me? It mentioned one on 5 August at Morecambe bay, on a sandbank close to Morecambe town, and one on 6 August on the sandbank close to Morecambe town—operations that did not take place. Is she seriously suggesting that the reaction of the police to complaints from residents in Morecambe is directly comparable with a pre-planned multi-agency operation that took place on Pilling sands or, indeed, on the Dee?

Beverley Hughes: No, I am not saying that. I shall get to that point in a moment.
	The next relevant incident that my hon. Friend referred to occurred on 6 August at Thurstaston on the Wirral Dee estuary. This was a Department for Work and Pensions-led operation that targeted cockle pickers on the River Dee. The immigration service provided two immigration officers in support of the operation, but no foreign nationals were encountered on that day.
	We now arrive at the tragic events of 5 February this year, after which I had a meeting with my hon. Friend, on 12 February. During our meeting, I agreed to set out in writing the immigration service's enforcement activity in relation to cockle picking, which I did the same day. We tried to fax it to my hon. Friend that day, but we could not get it through on the fax machine. I also promised to let her have details of the number of rescue operations carried out in the Morecambe bay area, and I have written to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to ask it to provide her with the information.
	My hon. Friend then wrote to me on 19 February to point out what she considered to be discrepancies between the information in my letter of 12 February and the events as she understood them. I responded that day by saying that I understood that the details that I had given about the incident on 4 and 5 August were correct, but that I had been given the incorrect location for the operation on 6 August by officials—an error which I regretted.
	An investigation of how the erroneous information came to be given to me by officials has been undertaken by a senior member of the immigration and nationality directorate. It highlights significant inadequacies in record keeping in the Liverpool enforcement office. As a result, the details that I sent to my hon. Friend were drawn up on the basis of the recollection of staff who were available at the time, and they have turned out to be faulty. I am satisfied that this was done with the best of intentions of giving as full an account as possible. However, the staff responsible have been told in the strongest terms that in such cases the need for accuracy is absolutely paramount. Information should be checked, and any doubt about its accuracy should be made clear.

Geraldine Smith: What about the linkage in the operations between 5 August and 6 August? If it was just a simple error, it was just incompetence, and officials made a mistake about the location, why did they link the two operations together, and why did they say that no one had been arrested on 6 August because of the arrests on the previous day?

Beverley Hughes: Perhaps I can clarify those issues as I continue.
	The most serious problem is the absence of satisfactory records on the basis of which a confident and accurate account could and should have been given. The investigating officer, supported by a colleague from IND's human resources directorate, will now look further into how these management failures came about so that senior management can consider what further action would be appropriate. In the meantime, an additional senior manager has been appointed to lead the Liverpool office and to implement the necessary changes there.
	Now that the matter has been investigated, it is also clear that aspects of the details given to me by officials about the role of the immigration service in the events of the 4 August and 5 August were not wholly accurate, and I regret that as a result my hon. Friend was not given the full picture. However, the broad outline of that picture was correct—that on those days there was a police-led activity in the Morecambe bay area involving Chinese cockle pickers, which the immigration service supported when requested.

Geraldine Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Beverley Hughes: I will give way one more time, but I say to my hon. Friend that she has made understandable allegations, and I must put on the record the facts as I now understand them.

Geraldine Smith: But the Minister has not answered any of my questions. It is just not true that the police arresting 37 people on Chatsworth road, Morecambe, as a result of complaints from members of the public is the same or in any way comparable to a pre-planned immigration operation.

Beverley Hughes: No, and I am not saying that it is the same. What my hon. Friend needs to understand, however, is that operations against illegal workers take place in a variety of different ways—sometimes spontaneously, sometimes conducted in a planned way by one agency, and sometimes conducted in a planned way by agencies operating together. That does not negate the fact that strong co-operation exists, and that agencies try to respond to requests for assistance from any of their colleagues in other agencies. I agree with her that this was not a jointly planned operation—the police were acting spontaneously in relation to facts that were brought to their notice. They did not inform the immigration service about their intentions to act on this. They decided to initiate the activity themselves, which is within their province, and they did not inform the immigration service of this activity, which was clearly going to involve foreign nationals, until the evening of 4 August.

Geraldine Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Beverley Hughes: No, I am going to conclude, because we have almost run out of time.
	I would not want my hon. Friend to conclude from this that the priority given to illegal working is less than it should be. Over the last financial year, there has been a substantial increase in resources of £40 million within the immigration service. There have been a very large number of major operations to apprehend illegal workers, and a very large number of additional people have been apprehended and removed, despite the difficulty with Chinese people. And in relation to the activity of our organised branch, the Reflex operation, a large number of the criminal gangs behind this illegal working have been disrupted. I therefore hope that she will accept that while I regret the wrong information given to me and to her, that does not negate the excellent work that the immigration service and other agencies are fulfilling in tackling this very serious problem.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at half-past Six o'clock.